(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Hearing"

SAN FRAMCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 06155 9317 



^CLOSED 
STACKS ___ 

m 



»OVE ■- *>RMAT!ON GENTEft 

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC USF^ARY 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 






REFERENCE 
BOOK 



Not lo be taken from I he Library 






3 1223 06155 9317 






HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




^ 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1992 



2:05 P.M. 



DOCUMfcu V3 OcPT 


JUL 1 3 1992 


Ullni - 



203-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1992 
2:05 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



6 47594 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
171 SHPL 09/28/01 25 



1 

11 

2 APPEARANCES 

ll 

3 MEMBERS PRESENT 

4 SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chair 
s SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRI S 

'! 

6 SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

ii 

7 SENATOR HENRY MELLO 

g MEMBERS ABSENT 

9 SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chairman 
II 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 



10 

11 



12 PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 



13 
14 



RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 



15 ALSO PRESENT 






16 RICHARD R. BAYQUEN, Chief Deputy Director 
Department of Rehabilitation 



17 

18 

i 

19 
j 

20 

I 

21 Ii 



STEFAN L. MANOLAKAS, Member 
California Horse Racing Board 

JOHN L. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Deputy Director 
Department of Health Services 

DAVE HELMSIN, Legislative Advocate 
California Association of Health Facilities 



22 BRUCE POMER, Legislative Advocate 
California Conference of Local Health Officers 

23 Health Officers Association of California 
California Public Health Foundation 

24 

THERESA MENEFEE, Former Employee 

25 Department of Health Services 

26 MARZ J. GARCIA, Director 
Office of Administrative Law 

27 

JOHN GARAMENDI, Commissioner 
2g Department of Insurance 



iii 

1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED) 

2 ; HARVEY ROSENFIELD, Chairman 

Voter Revolt 

3 ; 

EDWARD P. HOWARD, Esq. 

4 Hall & Phillips 

ij Counsel for Voter Revolt 

5 'I 

MICHAEL McNAMER, Senior Counsel 

6 Office of Administrative Law 

7 i| JAMES M. STROCK, Secretary 

i 1 California Environmental Protection Agency 

8 ;: 

GREG SCHULTE 
9 U.S. Customs 

Oceanside, California 
10 

LEONARD E. ROBINSON, Environmental Manager 

11 Ji TAMCO Steel Mill 

Rancho Cucamunga, California 

12 j 

THOMOAS McHENRY, President 

13 Hazardous Waste Association of California 

14 WILL ALLEN 

California Institute for Rural Studies 

CAMELIA YARBOROUGH-NUNES 

16 1 Concerned Citizens of Brentwood 

17 TOM CANDRIAN, Director 
Pesticide Action Group 

18 Marin County 

19 JULIE COOK 



20 



Citizens for a Healthy Ukiah 



!! LEW DUNN 

21 California Committee against Toxics 

22 ij DOUG JACKSON 

Clear Water Action Project 

23 San Francisco 

ii 

i 

24 | 
l 

|| 

26 
27 

28 



IV 



INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 



RICHARD R. BAYQUEN, Chief Deputy Director 

Department of Rehabilitation 1 

Background and Experience 2 

Department of Finance 3 

Health and Welfare Agency, Fiscal 3 

Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, Fiscal 3 

Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 4 

Department of Developmental Services 4 

Assembly Minority Ways and Means Committee 4 

Department of Rehabilitation 4 

Business Enterprise Program 5 

Orientation Center for the Blind 6 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Funding of Department 7 

Employer Fees 7 

Employers' Opposition to Workers' Comp. 

Rehabilitation Program 7 

Origin of People in Programs 8 

Questions by SENATOR MELLO re: 

Reduction in Number of Blind Vendors 10 

Low Profitability 10 

Department's Plans for Improving Business 

Enterprise Program 11 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



Identification of More Government- 
Owned or Occupied Buildings in California 11 

Identification of Vending Machines in 

State Buildings not Contributing 

Commissions to Vending Stand Account 12 

Competition between Vendors and State 

Employees in Fundraising Activities 12 

Steps to Stop Diversion of Equipment from 

Blind Vendors 13 

Inventory Accounting System in Place 14 

Motion to Confirm 14 

Committee Action 15 

STEFAN L. MANOLAKAS, Member 

California Horse Racing Board 15 

Motion to Confirm 15 

Comments by SENATOR MELLO re: 

Affirmative Action Record of Board 15 

Committee Action 16 
Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

First Minority, Greek, Appointed to Board 17 

Commitment to Improve Board's Policy 

regarding Affirmative Action 17 



(JOHN RODRIGUEZ, Chief Deputy Director 
21 Department of Health Services 17 



i 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Managerial Philosophy 17 

Witnesses in Support: 

DAVE HELMS IN, Legislative Advocate 

California Association of Health Facilities 19 

BRUCE POMER, Legislative Advocate 

California Conference of Local Health Officers 

Health Officers Association 

California Public Health Foundation 20 



V1 

1 

2 Witness in Opposition; 

3 THERESA MENEFEE, Former Employee 

Department of Health Services 21 

4 

Request for Resolution of Discrimination 

5 Issues Prior to Confirmation 21 

6 Issues Presented Previously 21 

Husband-Wife Teams in Same Division 21 

8 Promotions 21 

9 Plans for Working with Minorities 22 

10 Response by MS. NANCY MICHEL 22 

11 Meeting of DHS Leaders with Senate 

Staff 22 

12 

Uncomfortable with Confirmation Going Forward 

13 before Resolution of Issues 22 

14 Response by MS. MICHEL 22 

15 Response by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI 23 

16 Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

17 Complaints that MR. RODRIGUEZ Didn't 

Appear at Meetings 23 

18 

Need for Some Meetings Prior to 

19 Floor Vote 24 

20 Request to Be Present at Meetings with 

Senate Staff and DHS Leadership 24 



21 

:: 

23 



Response by MS. MICHEL 24 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 



Average Time for Department of Health Services 

to Respond to Formal Discrimination Complaint 25 

25 Two Approaches 2 £ 

26 Loss of Tapes and Files in Discrimination 
Case Involving Six Black Men 2 5 

n 

28 

I 



Vll 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

8 Need to Set Priorities 31 

9 Opportunities for Getting More Money 33 

Senator's Single-Pay System Bill 33 

Savings by Removing Paperwork 33 



Accidental not Purposeful 29 

Current Efforts to Close Gap of Hispanic 

Employees 29 

Office of Civil Rights Developing Plan 30 

Need to Increase Candidate Pool 30 

Department's Efforts on Making Health Care 

Available to All Californians 31 



10 

u 

12 
13 
14 

15 

1 
16 

17 



Letters in Support from Outside Department; 

Letters in Opposition from Inside Department 34 

Problems Regarding SB 127 35 

Motion to Confirm 36 

Committee Action 37 

Statement by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI on Testimony Only for 

Next Two Appointments; No Vote Today 37 



18 ilMARZ J. GARCIA, Director 

Office of Administrative Law 38 



19 

20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Background and Experience 38 

Question by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Mission of Office of Administrative Law 39 

Witnesses in Opposition; 

JOHN GARAMENDI, Insurance Commissioner 

Department of Insurance 40 

Adoption of Proposition 103 Rules and 

Regulations Prior to arrival of MR. GARCIA 41 

Derailment of Efforts to Provide Rollbacks 41 



Vlll 



Rejection of Emergency Regulations 

on Three Separate Occasions 41 

Critical Timing of Latest Rejection 42 

Negotiations with Mercury Insurance 

for Rebates 42 

Administrative Hearings in Process 

with Other Insurance Companies 42 

Fraudulent Activities of Unlicensed Insurance 
Companies in California 42 

OAL's Rejection of Proposed Regulations 43 

Director Taking Law into Own Hands 44 

Request to Remove MR. GARCIA from Office 44 

Opportunties for Insurance Companies to 

Comment on Regulations 44 

Court Decisions on Emergency Regulations 45 

Response by MR. GARCIA re: 

Simple Resolution: Ask Court for Writ 

to Force OAL to Adopt Regulations 46 

Consistent with Governor's Decision in 
Overruling OAL 46 

No Attempt Made by Insurance Department 

to Make Emergency Regulations Permanent 46 

Regulations Invalid by Law 47 

People Don't Need Lawsuits 47 
Questions of MR. GARCIA by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Mouthpiece for Insurance Industry 47 

Rejection of Regulations Covering 

Surplus Line Brokers 48 

Those Regulations not Part of 

Proposition 103 49 



IX 



Prior Approval not Consistent 

with Law 49 

Needs to be Addressed by Legislature 49 

Definition of Noncompetitive Market 49 

Judgment of Department of Insurance Being 

Substituted for Judgment of Office of 

Administrative Law 50 

Surplus Line Law is 1937 Statute 50 

Section in Proposition 103 50 

Enactment of Assigned Risk Program 50 

Submitted Regulations not Prior Approval Regs 

but Allow for Evaluation by Commissioner 51 

HARVEY ROSENFIELD, Chairman 

Voter Revolt 51 

Availability of Counsel for Detailed 

Presentation on Points Raised 51 

Prop. 103 Subject to Thievery by Unelected 
Bureaucrats Working with Insurance Industry 52 

Disechantment of Voters with Democratic 

Institutions of Government 52 

Prior Commissioner's Delay of Any Implementation 

of Initiative 52 

Voters Established Elected Insurance 
Commissioner 53 

MR. GARCIA' s Rejection of Numerous Regulations 
Needed to Implement Rollbacks 53 

Public ' s Rights Trammeled by Insurance 

Industry's Ability to Influence Unelected 

State Officials 53 

Most Recent Rejection by OAL Will 

Prohibit Implementation for 2-3 Years 54 

MR. GARCIA 's Statement that Proposed Regs 

Are Confiscatory 55 



1 

2 OAL Interpreting Constitution from Policy 

Perspective 55 

Substitution of Policy Judgment for 

4 Commissioner's Decision 55 

ii 

5 OAL's Creation of Special Court of Insurance 
Industry Appeals 56 

6 

7 

8 



25 
26 
27 
28 



Disturbed to Learn of No Up or Down Vote Today 56 
Opportunity to Remove MR. GARCIA from Office 56 



Unfair to Balance Budget on Backs of Motorists 
9 in Order to not Humiliate Governor during Budget 

Negotiations 57 



Response by SENATOR PETRIS 57 

Request to Reject Nomination 58 
Statements by SENATOR MELLO re: 

Expectations of People for Rollbacks 58 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 

People Disinclined to See Government 

15 Suing Government 59 

16 MR. GARCIA Overruled on Two or Three 

Occasions 59 

Original Intent in Drafting Bill which 

18 Created OAL 59 

19 Filing of Public Records Act Request 60 

20 Copies of Communications from and to 

Insurance Industry 60 

21 

22 

23 

Governor not Trapped and Can 
24 Overrule OAL's Decisions, while 

Agreeing with OAL's Legal Merits 61 



Response by MR. GARCIA re: 

OAL Trapped by Law 61 



Questions by SENATOR MELLO re: 

Overrulings by Courts 61 



XI 



1 

2 j Specific Ruling Directed at 

Another Party, not OAL 62 

3 i 

Paraphrasing of Cal Farm Decision at 

4 SENATOR TORRES ' s Hearing Regarding 

Insurance Companies' Rates of Return 62 

5 | 

Effect of Emergency Regulations Is 

6 Hundreds of Phone Calls 62 

7 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

8 Voluminous Participation on Rollback 
Regulations 63 

9 
10 



Deficiencies and Legal Problems 63 



Governor's Overruling of Emergency 

11 Regulations Decision 63 

12 Response by COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI re: 

13 jj Rejection of Regs Due to Lack of Comments 64 

14 Governor Overruled OAL 64 

15 Superior Court Found Credible Reason 

for Emergency Regs 64 

16 

MR. GARCIA Stopping Efforts to Proceed 

17 with Implementation Process 

18 Time-consuming Delays 65 

19 Senate's Responsibility to Remove 

MR. GARCIA from Office 66 

20 

EDWARD P. HOWARD, Esq. 
21 Hall & Phillips 

Counsel for Voter Revolt 66 

22 
23 
24 
25 



Unlawful Actions of OAL 66 

Government Code Sec. 11340.1 67 

OAL's Reasons for Rejecting Rebate Regs 67 



Failure to Give Insurers Right to 
26 Prove Rate Unconstitutional 

27 
28 



Xll 



Case of Twentieth Century 67 

Court Disagreed with OAL 67 

Unlawful Substitution of OAL's 
Judgment for Commissioner's 67 

OAL's Assertion that Cal Farm Decision 

Demands Disapproval of Rebate Regs 68 

Central Question in Governor ' s 

Overruling OAL 68 

Quote from Governor Wilson 68 

Unlawful Substitution of OAL ' s 

Judgment for Commmissioner ' s 69 

OAL ' s Contention that Supporting Statements 

of Emergency are Invalid 69 

Judge Janavs ' Overrule of OAL 69 

Unlawful Substitution of OAL ' s 

Judgment for Commissioner's 69 

Three Rejections of OAL's Decisions 

Demonstrate that Those Decisions are 

Unlawful 70 

OAL's Reply to Commissioner's Appeal on 
Constitutionality of Rate Setting 70 

Insurance Regulations Sec. 2646.4(e) 70 

MICHAEL McNAMER, Senior Counsel 

Office of Administrative Law 71 

Very Careful not to Substitute Judgment 

of OAL for that of Rule Making Agency 71 

Limited to Rules Making Record when Approving 

or Disapproving Regulations 72 

Advice Given to MR. GARCIA Based on Solid 

Reading of Law 72 

Suggest Committee Read Decisions Issued by OAL 73 

Responsible Articulation of Cal Farm Decision 73 



Xlll 



Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Overruling by Governor 7 3 

Powers of Governor vs. OAL 74 

Procedural History Leading up to 

Governor's Overruling 74 

Commissioner's Emergency Filing 

in August, 1991 74 

Approved by Interim Director 75 

After MR. GARCIA* s Arrival, Filing 
of Companion Set of Emergency Regs 
Involving Generic Determinations 75 

OAL's Decision that No Emergency 
Existed 75 

Person Making Determination 75 

Limits Public's Ability to 

Comment 7 6 

Superior Court ' s Ruling that Credible 

Evidence Supported Emergency 76 

Governor's Overruling of OAL's 

Decision in September or October, 

1991 76 

Commissioner's Filing of Certificate 

of Compliance in December, 1991 76 

Accompanied by Request for 
Re-adoption of Emergency Regs 77 

Definition of Emergency 77 

Other Regulations Subjected to 

Same Scrutiny 77 

Duration of Scrutiny 77 

APA Permits Public Comment Directly 

to OAL on Emergency Regs 78 

OAL's Regs on Accepting Comments 78 



XIV 



Summary of Previous Testimony 79 

OAL Did Not Substitute Its Judgment for 

that of Commissioner 80 

Regulations Failed to Satisfy OAL's Criteria 

in Three Areas 81 

Inconsistent with Decision of Supreme 

Court in Cal Farm 81 



Clarity Problems 81 

No Demonstration of Necessity for Fees 81 

Establishment of Mathematical 

Model and Eight Variances 81 

Limit Evidence Insurers Can Bring 

in to Correct Application of Model 82 

Response by COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI re: 

Definition of Policy; Substitution of 

Policy Judgment by OAL 83 

Cal Farm ' s Decision on Need for Individualized 
Relief from Confiscatory Rates 83 

Response by COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI 84 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Charge of Office of Administrative Law 84 

Six Statutory Standards 84 

Application of Legal Standards, not 

Wisdom or Merit Standards 85 

Issues Specifically Dealt with in 

Regulations under Discussion 86 

Disapproved on Consistency Standard 86 

Disapproved on Necessity Standard 

on Fees 86 



Denial of Regulations Becomes Statutory 86 
Response by MR. McNAMER re: 

Authority Standard 87 



xv 

1 i 

2 Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

I 

3 Charge of OAL Is to Ensure Regulations 

Do not Become Statutory 86 

5 I 

6 i 

7 

OAL as Separate Policy Agency by Denying 

8 Enforcement and Implementation Regulations 87 

9 No Reason to Have OAL 88 

10 Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

11 MR. GARCIA' s Definition of OAL ' s Mission 88 

12 Statements by COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI re: 

13 Authority on Fees in Insurance Code 

Sec. 12979 88 

14 

Number of Variances Allowed, and Ruling 

15 in Cal Farm 89 

16 Blatant Attempts to Derail Efforts to 

Implement Proposition 103 90 

17 

18 

19 

Application of Six Standards Set Forth in 

20 Administrative Procedure Act 91 

21 Need to Explain all Grounds for 

Disapproval of Regulations 91 

22 

Failure of Fees Standard on Lack of 

23 Demonstrated Necessity and Supportive Evidence 91 

24 OAL Trapped by Law, but Governor Not 92 

25 Purposes of Office of Administrative Law 92 

26 Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

27 Fearful that OAL Becomes Policy Maker by 

Denial of Regulations 92 

28 I 



Response by MR. GARCIA re: 

Substitution of Judgment 91 



XVI 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Regulation of Insurance Companies 

7 Contained in 1937 Law and CARP 94 

II 

8 Statement of Committee ' s Intent to Put Over 

Vote upon Call of Chair 95 



Response by COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI re: 

Director of OAL Setting Policy 93 

Director's Decision that It Is 

Inappropriate for Insurance Commissioner 

to Protect Public from Unlicensed 

Insurance Companies 94 



9 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Resolution of Permitting Problems by 

23 Cal EPA 100 

! 

24 Needs of Business in California to Survive 100 

25 THOMAS McHENRY, President 

Hazardous Waste Association of California 101 

26 

Importance of Cal EPA 102 

27 

28 ! ! 



Announcement by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI on Status of 

Hearing for MR. STROCK 80 

Statement of Committee's Intent by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI 95 

JAMES M. STROCK, Secretary 
California Environmental Protection Agency 96 

Background and Experience 96 

Witnesses in Support; 

GREG SCHULTE, Special Agent 

United State Customs 

Oceanside, California 98 

Cal EPA's Mexican Border Project 98 

Seizure of 24 Drums of Chlorinated Solvent Waste 99 



LEONARD ROBINSON, Environmental Manager 

TAMCO Steel Mill 99 

Recycling of Used Oil Filters 100 



XV11 



Assistance of Cal EPA in Permitting 102 

Qualifications of MR. STROCK 103 

Witness with Concerns; 

WILL ALLEN 

California Institute for Rural Studies 104 

Meeting with STROCK on May 18 104 

Institute's Monitoring of Pesticide 

Registration and Suspension Process 105 

Cost Charged for Copies of Department ' s 

Evaluations 105 

Need for Champion for Environment 106 

Witnesses in Opposition; 

CAMEL I A YARBOROUGH-NUNES 

Concerned Citizens of Brentwood 107 

Pesticide Illnesses of Children and Farmworkers 107 

Nothing Done about Toxic Chemicals Drifting 

into School Yards 108 

TOM CANDRIAN, Director 
Pesticide Action Group 
Marin County 108 

Amount of Pesticides Put on U.S. and Exported 109 

Lack of Enforcement of Regulations 109 

Anecdote of Personal Experience with 

Gardener Applying Pesticides at Private School 109 

JULIE COOK 

Citizens for a Healthy Ukiah 111 

Strong Pollution in Neighborhood 111 

International Paper's History of Abuses 112 

State Allowed Exemption for Testing Organics 112 

Against Streamlining of Permit Processes 112 



XV111 



LEW DUNN 

California Committee against Toxics 113 

Lying by Department of Health Services 113 

EPA's Lack of Enforcement 114 

Need to Change Prop. 65 Requirements on 

Sale of Hazardous Properties 114 

Proliferation of Breast Cancers in 

Roseville, California 114 

Clusters of Children's Cancers in 

Fresno County 115 

Extensive Files 116 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Location of Residence 117 

County of Mendocino Allowing Variances 

for Masonite Plant to Continue Operation 117 

Actions of Air Pollution Control Officer 118 

Need for Positive Action 118 

DOUG JACKSON 

Clean Water Action Project 

San Francisco 119 

Current Fight against Rohnpoulenc 

Incinerator in Martinez 120 

Against Streamlining Permit Processes 120 

Citizen's Point of View 120 

Opposition to Confirmation 122 

Comments by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Current Cry: Get Government Off Our Back 122 

Governor Wilson's Action in Pulling Agency 

Out of Department of Agriculture 123 

Tremendous Pressure on Direcctor 123 



XIX 



Not Handmaiden of Chemical 

Companies 124 

Announcement of List of Suspended 
Pesticides 124 

Conclusion and Summary by MR. STROCK 125 

Disappointment in Reaction of Citizen 

Pesticide Groups 125 

Accepted Request to Tour Sites 126 

U.S. International Leader in Environmental 
Enforcement 126 

Permitting Standards 126 

Importance of Enforcement 127 

Request by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Personal Conference on SB 926 and Other 

Areas Mentioned in Hearing 128 

Termination of Proceedings 129 

Certificate of Reporter 130 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



il X 

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

— ooOoo — 
li 

SENATOR PETRIS: Governor's appointees, we have 

Stefan Manolakas, Member of the California Horse Racing Board. 

MS. MICHEL: Senator Petris, I think you need a full 
Committee. I think you need to wait until Senator Roberti gets 
here. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We do? Is there a problem? 

SENATOR MELLO: I expressed my concern about the — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Oh, okay, we'll wait. Yes, we put 
it over at your request. 

SENATOR MELLO: — hiring practices of the Horse 
Racing Board. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I remember. Well, we'll get to 
it later. 

I think Mr. Manolakas has spent more time here than 
he has in the Board meetings, so maybe today we'll come to a 
conclusion. 

I think Senator Roberti would like to be here for all 
the rest of them. 

[Thereupon legislative agenda 
items were acted upon by the 
Rules Committee . ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Why don't we take up Richard R. 
Bayquen, Chief Deputy Director, Department of Rehabilitation. 

We have heard Mr. Bayquen, have we not? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Two years ago, Senator. 



2 

l 

MS. MICHEL: In another life. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: In another life? 

3 

[Laughter. ] 

4 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Okay, in this life tell us, 
Mr. Bayquen, why you feel you're qualified to assume this 
position? 

Senator Way is here as well, very good. 

MR. BAYQUEN: I'm trying to get me wife in the room. 
I'll go ahead and start. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senators. 

My name is Richard Bayquen. I'm here as Chief Deputy 
Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. 

I have the honor and the pleasure of being once again 
before this Committee for the very important and sensitive 

jjposition as Chief Deputy Director of this Department, which has 

ji 

jja responsibility for providing rehabilitation services to 
iCalifornians with physical, mental, sensory, and developmental 
disabilities . 

As you may recall, I had the opportunity to appear 

j 

jbefore you a little more than two years ago, as Chief Deputy 



5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

(Director of the Department of Developmental Services. At that 
22 

time, I enjoyed the Committee's favorable confirmation 

23 

recommendation to the Floor. 

24 

In outlining why I believe that I am qualified for 

25 

''this position, I will touch briefly on my administrative, 

26 || 

^managerial, and legislative experience in California state 

27 

Sgovernment, and also my continuing interest and commitment in 

28 



1 II 

serving Calif ornians with disabilities. 
2 

Practically all of my working career has been spent 

3 j 

in California public service. During my career, I have had the 

4 | 

iOpportunity to serve with seven agencies, and to be appointed to 

5 

positions with the Wilson, Deukmejian, and Brown 

fAdmi 

My career in state government started in 1972, 

8 

Ijimmediately upon graduation from college. I had the good luck, 

9 

{the good fortune, of being hired by the Department of Finance as 

10 || 

a budget analyst, where I learned the budget processes of both 

11 ;! 

ithe executive and the legislative branches of government. I 

12 I 

think this experience has been invaluable to me in subsequent 



6 

linistrations . 



13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



assignments, because an important and significant aspect of 
those assignments has been one of developing budget proposals, 
advocating and lobbying for additional dollars to meet expanding 
orkloads and caseloads, and to improve the services for which I 
had responsibility. 

In 1977, I joined the Health and Welfare Agency as 
the Deputy Secretary for Fiscal, where I worked and learned 
about virtually every Health and Welfare program, including 
Rehabilitation, Mental Health, and Developmental Services. 

In 1980, I joined the Youth and Adult Correctional 
Agency as Deputy Secretary for Fiscal, serving a former 
colleague of many of yours, then-Agency Secretary Howard Way. 
Later that year, I was appointed Deputy Director of 
Administrative Services for the Department of Corrections, which 
was just starting to grow at that time. In this capacity, I was 



4 
a key manager in a very large and complex organization. 

In 1987, I was appointed Chief Deputy Director of the 
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, returning to the health 
and human services field. In this capacity, I had the 
opportunity to be involved in the administration of treatment 
and care programs and the development of prevention programs . 

In 1988, I became acting Chief Deputy Director of the 
Department of Developmental Services. Shortly thereafter, I was 
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate in 1990. 
In this important position, I not only served the 
developmental ly disabled, but also had an opportunity to be an 
advocate within the Administration for this sensitive and 
critical program. 

Upon the change of Administration in 1991, I worked 
briefly for the Assembly Minority Ways and Means Committee 
staff, initially as consultant to Subcommittee I, the 
subcommittee which deals with health and welfare, and then after 
that as Staff Director when Cliff Allenby left and went back to 
the California Building Industry Association. 

Although my stint in the Legislature was short, it 
gave me more knowledge, a better understanding, and a deeper 
appreciation for the legislative process which benefits me as a 
program administrator. 

My extensive and varied experience, and more 
specifically, my Health and Welfare and Disability Program 
management experience, has prepared me for the duties of Chief 
Deputy Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. 



5 

1 ! 

Also, I bring a continuing interest in and commitment 

2 [| 

;to serving people with disabilities . I am very proud of my 

3 

many years of public service, but most proud of my service to 

4 

jfcalifornians with disabilities. 

5 ! ! 

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly 
( address two issues: the Business Enterprise Program, and the 

7 

jbrientation Center for the Blind. These two programs were the 

8 

subject of discussion with this Committee during my Director's 

9 1 

confirmation hearing. 



10 

n 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



The Business Enterprise Program is the federally 
sponsored rehabilitation program in which blind and visually 
impaired businessmen and women operate food service and other 
vending facilities in government -owned and occupied facilities. 

Let me reaffirm our commitment to not only improve 
|the Business Enterprise Program, but to also improve our 

! 

communication and consultation with the California Vendor Policy 
Committee and other vendors. 

Since Director Tainter's confirmation hearing in 

ii 

{(February of this year, the Department of Rehabilitation has 

ii 

('vigorously followed up on every one of the concerns raised by 

ij 

the California Vendor Policy Committee's resolution. I believe 
Ijwe have made substantial progress in favorably address and 
((remedying the issues raised. 

And furthermore, the Director at that time, he 
) acknowledged that we were late in submitting reports to the 
[Legislature as required by Budget Act supplemental report 

language and SB 2759, authored by Senator Mello. I am pleased 



'to be able to say that these reports have been completed, and 
2 

;that they have been shared with the Legislature. 

3 

As Chief Deputy Director, I intend to improve the 
4 

^Department ' s track record by getting reports to the Legislature 

on time. 

6 ll 

Finally, on the Business Enterprise Program, I am 

7 j 

committed to the Department working with the California Vendors 

8 

Policy Committee as a team. We will endeavor to do everything 

9 

iwe can to see that all vendors work as a team, and not to 
10 

^exploit the devisiveness within the vendor community. 

11 

The Department of Rehabilitation and I commit to 

^advocating for this very important program to see that 

13 j 

^opportunities for program expansion and increased profitability 

14 It 

are pursued. 

15 

Regarding the Orientation Center for the Blind in 

16 

Albany, the Department does not have any plans to close that 

17 

ijfacility. If fiscal circumstances and conditions necessitated 
18 i! 

revisiting that issue, I assure you that we would not consider 
19 

j'such a decision without appropriately consulting the blind 

20 i ! 

''community of California. 

21 j 

My appointment with the Department of Rehabilitation 

22 j| 

jigives me an expanded opportunity to serve Californians of all 

23 ii 

disabilities by playing a key role in providing vocational 

24 

^rehabilitation services, independent living skills, habilitation 

25 

I services, and support employment opportunities. 

26 j| 

Helping people with disabilities to develop job and 

27 

j independent living skills so that they, too, may have the 

28 :' " 



7 

1 

opportunity to participate fully and equally in the American 

2 

dream is something I strongly believe in. I would like to 

3 

continue to be a part of this effort. 

4 

I appreciate your consideration of my appointment 

5 

once again, and I'll be happy to answer any questions the 

6 

Committee might have. 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is your Department funded entirely 
from the general fund? 

MR. BAYQUEN: No, sir. The vocational rehabilitation 
program receives 75 percent of our funding from the federal 
government, and 25 percent, approximately, from the state. The 
vocational rehabilitation program overall is about $211 million. 



|We have about $30-31 million in the general fund match, and the 
15 

ibalance is primarily federal funds. 
16 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are there any fees charged to 
17 

iemployers? 

18 

MR. BAYQUEN: Pardon me? 
19 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are there any fees charged to 

20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



jemployers? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Not related to our program, no, sir. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I've been visited by a group 
of employers just this week. They're concerned about the 
!|overall workers' comp. problem, and they're strongly opposed to 
'our rehab, program. They want to eliminate it. They think it's 
costing them too much money. They didn't tell me how. They 
want to do their own rehab, work, which sounds like of strange 



8 
to me in the event of a very serious disability, and retraining, 
and so forth. 

Have you had any comments from the business community 

along those lines? 

j 

. MR. BAYQUEN: I've only been involved in one meeting, 

and I think what those people were talking about was not the 
program that the Department of Rehabilitation has 
responsibility, but the vocational rehabilitation aspect of the 
Worker Comp. System, and concerns that that system, which those 
services are primarily provided by private for-profit entities. 
I think that their issues and concerns have — go to 
that group. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are those fees paid by the employer 

I 

to the private entities? 

MR. BAYQUEN: I believe it's paid by the employer and 

also from the Workers' Compensation System. 



l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

But the Department of Rehabilitation is totally 
18 j! 

separate from that system. 

19 
20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



There have some discussions, I know, within the 
jCapitol on a number of the bills that have been floating around 
on Workers' Comp. reform, looking at the Department of 
Rehabilitation as an alternative. And I have been involved in 
just one very, very brief discussion on that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Where do our people come from if 
they're not out of Workers' Comp? Where are they from? 

MR. BAYQUEN: They are people with disabilities who, 
'hopefully, have heard something from friends, or through some 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



9 
outreach effort, about the Department, and they may have a 
physical, mental, developmental disabilities. People from the 
developmental disabilities system, typically in our habilitation 
program — which is worth about $80 million, and that's pure 
general fund — they typically would be referred to us from the 
regional center system. 

SENATOR PETRI S: That's not job-related. They're 
trying to get a job. 

MR. BAYQUEN: Yes, right. In that case, you're 
either trying to provide habilitation services, as opposed to 
rehabilitation services, or looking for supported employment 
opportunities to give those people an opportunity to work in the 
community, to give them an opportunity to be part of the working 
mainstream. 

SENATOR PETRI S: So, you don't retrain any injured 
workers? 

MR. BAYQUEN: That is not our department, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, a couple questions. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Mello. 

Ij 

I 

SENATOR MELLO: Regarding your statement relating to 

i, 

the Blind Vendors. I think the report to the Legislature was 
long overdue, and we finally got that. 

And you talked about the devisiveness within the 
Blind Vendors. I think the report pointed out some of the 
problems that are still ongoing. 

Number one is the fact that the number of Blind 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



10 
Vendors has reduced in California from 350 about three years 
ago, down to 220 today, is my latest figure. That's a reduction 
of about 40 percent. 

The second point is, the profitability of those that 
are struggling to become Blind Vendors is such that a lot of 

I. 
l| 

them are just giving up and going on welfare, getting Aid to the 

Blind, rather than trying to make it on their own. 

I 

So, I think it's going to take a lot of doing in your 
Department to make sure that people who do not want to be on 
welfare, who can develop — we have to provide them 
'opportunities so that they can continue to operate these Blind 
Vendor stations and make a profit at it, become self-sufficient. 
ISo far, they're losing out all over the state. 

MR. BAYQUEN: Senator, I'm very aware of those 
problems and concerns. The report that is required by your 
bill, SB 2759, in fact I see that as a very important starting 
jpoint. And we do have that report completed, where there is a 
survey of facilities and other opportunities, so we can 
hopefully expand the Business Enterprise Program. 

It has been — it has been going backwards in the 
sense that there are less vendors. During these recessionary 
times, it's very, very difficult for them to maintain their 
profit levels. And it's something that, I know since Director 
'Tainter's confirmation, that we've worked on very vigorously, 
and we will continue to do so. And we've worked in very good 
contact, not only with the California Vendors Policy Committee, 
but other vendors, and also Kathy Douglas from your staff, to 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



11 
let you know on a regular basis, and we will continue to do 
that . 

And if we need help towards that end, we will not 

I 

ihesitate to let you know if there is something legislatively 
that we need accomplished to make that program more viable, to 
make that program more vigorous, to make that program grow as 
opposed to decline in numbers, Senator. 

SENATOR MELLO: I'd like to know what plan you have 

for turning this around. 

ii 
< 

The reduction actually came before the recession 

l| 

^started. This loss of 350 down to 200 and something happened 
about three years ago, and that was before the so-called 
Ijrecession we're now in took place, so it's even worse. 

MR. BAYQUEN: Well, one of the things, again it goes 

Ii 

to the report that we have just recently completed, we've 

^identified a number of other government -owned or occupied 

buildings where there are not Blind Vendors in those buildings. 

i 

So, first of all, we have to start by identifying 

,l 

ijwhere there are additional opportunities to expand those 
Business Enterprise Programs. And again, that was one of the 
requirements of your legislation, which we have followed up on, 
and so we have identified literally dozens and dozens of other 
locations that, heretofore, the Department has not pursued any 
expansion because they haven't been aware of those facilities. 

Additionally, in terms of profitability, one thing 

ii 

that we have also found is that there are a number of vending 
machines throughout state buildings in California and 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



12 
government -owned and occupied buildings in California, where 

Commissions are not coming to the Vending Stand Account to help 

I 

expand and improve that program. So, I believe that there are 

ii 

probably thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars of fees 
that should be coming to the Vending Stand Account, which the 
pending Stand Account is there specifically for the purpose of 

i! 
j. 

expanding, of maintaining, and keeping a quality program. And 

n 

so, we have identified that, and we are going to be pursuing 

il 

ilwith a number of other state agencies and other government 

j| 

agencies commissions from those vending machines, which should 

ijhave been coming to the Vending Stand Account for a number of 

years . And I think those are two of the real keys . 

Also, the Department, as I indicated in my comments, 
||I think that the Department has not been an advocate for the 
program, has not been to other agencies, to other departments, 
ad at a minimum, making them aware, and making them sensitive to 
this program. 

And one of the things that we have scheduled is, 
before the end of this month, on June 30th, at the Health and 
Welfare Agency, there is a Director's Meeting every Tuesday, and 
jone of the concerns that the Vendors have is that when state 

employees have fundraisers, or have coffee sales, they're 

ii 

competing directly with the Vendors. And I think many state 

[employees are not aware of that direct competition, and the 

l; 

iVendors, at a minimum, would like to be notified when those 
iievents are going to happen so they won't be producing perishable 
products and bringing on additional staff, and not have a 



13 

1 

market, not have a demand for their products on those days. 
So, those are a couple of the things that we are 

3 j 

working on, both short-term and long-term, to be more of an 

4 

advocate for the program, and to see that we take advantage of 

5 '• 

all of the opportunities to establish stands throughout 

6 

government -owned and occupied buildings, and to get the vending 

7 

'machine commissions that are rightfully due to the Vending Stand 

8 li 

Account, which again, will help us to expand and improve the 

9 

program. And that's something, again, that we will work hand-in 
10 ; 

l-hand in partnership with the California Vendors Policy 
11 

Committee on that, Senator. 

12 j 

SENATOR MELLO: Last question, there's been over $2 

13 | 

million worth of equipment diverted away from the Blind Vendors. 

14 

That came out in the report of the Auditor General here awhile 

15 

back. 

16 || 

Is there anything that's been done to stop that 



17 
18 
19 
20 

21 
22 
23 

i Department could not account for. 

24 ij 

And I don't think anyone at this point can say 

25 : ' 

^conclusively whether or not the equipment was stolen, or whether 

26 

or not the equipment was just lost, or not properly accounted 

27 I 

for. 

28 .i 



diversion of all this equipment? I don't know what's happened, 
but it's been stolen, or diverted, or lost, or something. 

MR. BAYQUEN: My understanding, I believe that that 
Auditor General report goes back, oh gosh, I think maybe three 
years ago, that there was at least a million — and it could 
have been $2 million. I don't know — of equipment that the 



14 
I know even before I got to the Department of 
Rehabilitation last year, that the Department took very, very 
vigorous steps to make sure that they had a inventory accounting 
system in place so, hopefully, we would never have a repeat 
where equipment would vanish, would disappear, where we could 
hot account for it, because that's equipment that is paid for by 
the Vending Stand Account, paid for from the fees that come from 



2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

the Vendors. And if we don't properly account for and take 
9 j| 

control of that equipment, it's in the long run only going to 

10 

deplete the Vending Stand Account and take away from our 

n 

efforts. 

12 \ 

SENATOR MELLO: Okay, thank you very much. 

13 Ij 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions? 



14 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



Is there any opposition? 

SENATOR MELLO: Move the recommendation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Mello moves confirmation 

,ibe recommended to the Floor. 

ij 
i 

Secretary will call the roll. 

ij 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

|j 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

I 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 



Senator Mello. 

23 ; 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

24 il 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

25 

Senator Petris . 

26 j 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

27 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

28 I 



2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



15 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 
! CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 
i, Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

MR. BAYQUEN: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointment is Stefan L. 
Manolakas. He has a time problem. This is for vote only. He's 
a member of the California Horse Racing Board. 

This is for vote only. 

12 i 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I'll move we recommend approval of 
13 

'the confirmation. 

14 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves confirmation 

15 

jjbe recommended to the Floor. 
16 

Senator Mello. 

17 

SENATOR MELLO: I just want to comment. 

18 | 

I think he's trying hard on the Horse Racing Board. 

19 !j 

My only reason for raising the questions I did, and 

20 j: 

!the reason for voting no at this point is because I think, as 

21 J 

Ms. Michel indicated to us, the Horse Racing Board, directly and 

22 !| 

jindirectly, has the worst record of affirmative action in the 



23 

24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



State of California. And I think something has to be done to 

I 

turn that around. 

It's impossible to believe that we are not reaching 
to hire different ethnic groups into state-run organizations. 
]And I think the Horse Racing Board represents that kind of an 



16 
example . 

So, it's not something personally against you, but I 

think it's the whole Board, due to its past patterns, has to 

i 

chance its way of hiring people. 

il 

MR. MANOLAKAS: We'll do our best to remedy the 
problem . 

SENATOR MELLO: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Then do we have a motion? Senator 

9 

^Beverly has moved. 

10 

Secretary, call the roll. 

ll 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

12 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

13 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

14 

Senator Mello. 

15 

SENATOR MELLO: No. 

16 i! 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello No. 

17 

Senator Petris. 

18 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 



19 

20 
21 
22 



SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 
Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

23 j ! 

jj Three to one. 

24 : 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is three to one; 

25 I! 

^confirmation's recommended to the Floor. 

26 i 

SENATOR PETRIS: I forgot to make a comment. 
27 

I understand Senator Mello 's concerns. I've been 
28 ! 



17 
1 j 

Idoing some battles there, too over the years, but I was the 
2 

! first minority Member, Greek-American, to be elected to the 

3 I 

iLegislature, and he's the first to be appointed to this Board in 

4 

[[history. So, I think he's sensitive to that. 

5 i : 

I think if he has anything to say about it, the 

6 ii 

policy will improve. 

7 j| 

SENATOR MELLO: I'm looking forward to that, really. 

8 

i,I think he can do it. 

9 

MR. MANOLAKAS: Thank you. You're right. 

10 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Manolakas. 

11 il 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 

12 

acted upon legislative agenda 

13 !! 

items . ] 

14 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: John Rodriguez, Chief Deputy 

15 

[Director of the Department of Health Services . 

16 

17 
18 



19 



You've been here three times, Mr. Rodriguez? 
MR. RODRIGUEZ: This is my third time, sir. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Welcome again. 
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 



20 || 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Why don't you tell us why you feel 

21 

iyou're still qualified to assume this position? 



22 i 

23 

i 
24 

i 
25 

! 

26 

27 | 
28 



MR. RODRIGUEZ: I won't go into all the background 
about my career. I've been with the State of California since 
1973. 

I think the point that I would like to make very 
quickly is the things you can expect from me; the management 
philosophy that I've developed in the years I've been 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 



18 \ 



19 | 



20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



18 
responsible for the Medi-Cal Program, and which I'm going to 
bring to my — and which I have brought to my current duties as 
Chief Deputy. 

ji This philosophy is one which emphasizes open and 

jjclear communication with staff inside the Department, and with 
interest groups and constituencies outside the Department. It's 

a philosophy which clearly articulates our priorities, both 

i 
! I 

jinternally and externally. This is a philosophy which is open 

|i 

to new ideas and other points of view. And a philosophy that 

recognizes that we bear a responsibility to improve the programs 

I 

ijthat we operate. The status quo is not acceptable. 

In the weeks and months ahead, we're going to face 

ji 

jjone of the greatest challenges we ever had as a state, and as 
state employees . It's going to be more important than ever that 
jiwe set clear priorities for the services we provide, creatively 
i'implement program changes that may be necessary, and ensure open 
ilines of communication to and from all concerned. 

This is the type of leadership that I've demonstrated 
"over the last few years, and which you can continue to expect 
'from me in the months and years ahead. 

I believe that's why I'm qualified for this position, 

li 

[sir. 
| 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

Any discussion or debate? 

ii 

Is there anyone here in support? We have Mr. Dennis 

ijFlatt, Kaiser Permanente, however I don't see him in the 

li audience. 



19 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: He was here last time and did 
testify. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Do you have any questions, Senator 
Petris? 

SENATOR PETRIS: He's somebody who wants to testify. 
(I'll wait. Thank you. 

MR. HELMS IN: Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Dave 



l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Helmsin, California Association of Health Facilities. 

9 

I'd like to put in a good word for Mr. Rodriguez. 

10 

I've worked with him for over 20 years, 12 of which was in the 
11 , 

Department of Health Services, where I found his leadership and 

decision-making ability exemplary. Few civil service employees 

13 J 

that I've encountered in my career have risen to his standards, 

14 j| 

have taken his consideration with the issues. 

15 

The last seven years , I've worked with John as a 

16 

^representative of the California Association of Health 

17 

Facilities, representing primarily nursing homes which, more so 

18 i 

jthan any other provider, rely on Medi-Cal for their very 

19 

sustenance. We've negotiated some very tricky issues in those 
20 

jseven years, dealing with reimbursement, enforcement, and other 
21 |l 

policy matters. While we've disagreed, often to the point of 

22 

litigation, I've often always found John to be open, sincere in 

23 ll 

his interest in the issues, and willing to work through problems 



24 
25 
26 

27 

i! 

28 



in a constructive manner. 

I think that both the people of California, the 
providers, patients, and the Legislature included, are well 
served by Mr. Rodriguez in this capacity, and I'd like to see 



ii 



I 20 

1 

him confirmed. 

2 I 

Thank you. 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

Theresa Menefee — with some more support? Please 

pome forward with support. 

ji 

MR. POMER: Senator Roberti, Members of the 

Committee, Bruce Pomer, representing the California Conference 

ii 

Of Local Health Officers, the Health Officers Association, and 

ithe California Public Health Foundation. 



We have worked with John Rodriguez for several years . 

; : 

Our President. Carl Smith, would have been here to testify 

i! 

I 

today, but he had another commitment. 

I 

I have to say to you in his capacity as Deputy 

(Directory for Medi-Cal, and in his capacity as Chief Deputy 

ii 

lIDirector for the Department, we've found John to be open, 

^accessible, and competent. 

And I'd like to go a little bit further in saying 

18 

that the kind of team that Dr. Coye has assembled around her is 

19 

the best that we have seen in over a decade at the Department of 

20 

Health Services. And believe me, I've spent many years 

21 ii 

^representing this group. I've been around for 20 years. I've 

22 j 

'worked with John for over ten years. And I think we probably 

23 j 

have one of the best working relationships with DHS that we've 

24 I 

lever had in the history of that 20 -year period, and certainly 

25 i| 

with the team that he's assembled around with him, and his 

26 

liability to come out and meet with us and share difficult 
27 

! information with us, and truly seek our input and respond to it, 

28 i 



21 

l 

makes it an excellent working relationship with — for us, and I 

2 

ijknow for a number of other groups . 
3 ' ; 

We certainly recommend that you recommend his 

4 

jconf irmation today. 
5 I 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

7 

Any other person in support? 

In opposition we have Theresa Menefee. 
9 

MS. MENEFEE: I would like to address the issues I 

10 I 

discussed about two weeks ago. I would like to ask the 

" ;; 

Committee before Mr. Rodriguez is confirmed that the issues that 

12 ij 

[I brought up regarding this management style, working with 

13 

employees and staff, should be resolved, or to show some support 

14 

that he is going to resolve these issues and make the 

15 

environment for staff better. 

16 

And the issues that I addressed were his chief in — 

17 i 

,iover FMITY, doing his private business on working hours; 

18 
19 
20 

21 ; : 

ii 

ii 

22 
23 

24 

I 

25 I 

i 1 

26 

i 
l| 

27 

|| 

28 



husbands and wives working together in divisions, where there is 
no support there for employees if they have a discrepancy and 
they want to address it to the higher level, there's no support 
there if you have a team of husband and wife together. 

I also addressed about people getting promotions as 
far as the CEA appointments and other promotions within, 
spouses, or boyfriend-girlfriend type situations that 
Mr. Rodriguez is under. 

And before he's confirmed, I'd like some information 
or him to discuss how he plans to alleviate these types of 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

l! 

;! 

22 
23 

24 \ 

25 !! 

26 
27 
28 



22 

problems, and work with ethnic groups on a more upward mobility 
as well as equal opportunity and fair practice in the workplace. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Nancy, can you address this point? 

MS. MICHEL: I just wanted to point out that Dr. Coye 
and Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Joseph have agreed to meet with staff 
from the Senate and discuss means and methods of going forward 
with some of the problems that have been brought to all of us as 
a result of these confirmation hearings. 

You have a commitment from Dr. Coye, and from 
Mr. Rodriguez, and from Mr. Joseph that they will meet with 
staff from the Senate to resolve some of these very serious 
problems that you've brought to our attention. 

MS. MENEFEE: Will this be done before he's 
confirmed, or is this going to take place after he's confirmed? 

My concern with that is that Mr. Rodriguez, along 
with other management in Health Services, have made promises to 
employees that have not been kept. And that is why I am not in 
Health Services today. 

And I — I feel very uncomfortable to bring issues 
out, and then nothing becomes of them. 

Now, if this is going to take place after he's 
confirmed, I'm not comfortable with that because in past 
practice, they have not done what they've said they're going to 
do. 

If this is going to be addressed and corrected before 

I 

ihe's confirmed, then I don't have a problem with that. 

i 

MS. MICHEL: It'll start before he's confirmed. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



23 

Whether it's finished or not, there's no way of knowing. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What we normally do is, we vote 

confirmation out to the Floor, and it says on the Floor or at 

'i 

least two weeks . 

So, some of these problems — often it's negotiations 
between the person being confirmed and people who are in 
opposition, often personnel, people involved in employee 
relations, rather, have a chance to work out differences. 
That's why we keep it on the Floor for two weeks at a minimum. 

I suspect that's what we'll do again. So, the 
process will start taking place. 

If there is no resolution, then obviously that'll be 
an issue in the confirmation. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can we get a date prior to 
confirmation for starting this? 

MS. MICHEL: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I think it would be highly 
advisable. 

One of the complaints has been that Mr. Rodriguez 
doesn't show up for meetings. I've discussed this with him 
privately, and he denies it, but it is a compliant that we have 
in writing from a statewide organization. Some people travel 
;|400 miles to get to a meeting that he had promised, and then he 
Ididn't show up, according to them. 

Now, Mr. Rodriguez says that just didn't happen, but 
in view of that, it seems to me we ought to be sure there's one 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



24 
or two meetings prior to the Floor vote to give the parties a 
chance to, you know, get together and thrash these things out. 

MS. MICHEL: We have Charley Milburn, who is 
presently getting us a date for the first meeting. She's on the 
phone and will get back to us . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Okay, that's fine. 

I'd like to ask a couple of questions. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

MS. MENEFEE: I have one other question. 

Is it possible that this meeting that the Committee's 
having with Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Joseph — I have been having 
ongoing contact with Mr. Joseph — is it possible that I can be 
present for these meetings? I have a compliant that's going 
right now that ' s involving discrimination with the Department . 

MS. MICHEL: We are not in a position to resolve 
individual employee personal grievances . 

What we were going to approach was the general 
problem that seems to exist with regard to affirmative action 

:i 

and personnel policies within the Department. 

We were not going to handle individual ' s personal 
employee grievances, especially people who are in the process 

with their grievances . 

Ii 

MS. MENEFEE: Okay, well, if I eliminate the fact of 
the grievance that's in process, I'm still concern to the fact 
that Mr. Rodriguez being confirmed dealing with the 
discrimination issues that the Department has, and him being 
part of them. 



25 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



MS. MICHEL: I'll be very happy to report back to you 
on a regular basis. 

MS. MENEFEE: Okay, that's fine. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: There was a report in 1990 by the 
State Personnel Board — I realize that's before you came aboard 
in your present capacity — examining the problem that 
Ms. Menefee is talking about. And they concluded in their study 
that it took your Department, prior to your time, an average of 
nearly 315 days to respond to a formal discrimination 
complaint. 

Now, I find that totally unacceptable. This was one 
of the things the lady complained about. That compared to 51 
days for ABC; 85 days for Employment Development; and 70 days 
for Department of Social Services . 

In some cases, the Department has taken over a year 
to investigate and respond to individual complaints . According 
to the State Personnel Board regulations, the departments are 
required to respond to discrimination complaints within 180 days 
form the formal filing. And that seems to me to be a long time, 
six months. The 315 is closer to a whole year. 

Have you worked on improving and closing that gap? 
Can you comment on — 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I can. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I emphasize that this was published 
before you went into that job. 

I'm wondering, you must be aware of it, and I'm 



wondering what you ' re doing to improve that . 

2 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I am, Senator. 

3 

And my perspective of this is, I agree with you. 

4 

It's totally unacceptable that we exceed those standards. 
5 || 

I don't view, if you will, additional staff as the 



6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



answer, either. Not only is it, I think, the wrong approach to 
take to solve the problem, but I think it's an unrealistic 
expectation that anybody's going to get more staff in the 
situation we are now. We're going in the other direction. 

So, the answer from my point of view, from a 
manager's point of view, is you solve underlying problems. And 
there ' s two approaches I take to that . 

Number one, you solve problems earlier, before they 
(blow up into — into complaints that have to be dealt with by 
the Office of Civil Rights. And my — my philosophy, my 
approach to these kind of things is, as a senior manager, you 
have an open door policy where people who have a problem with 
their supervisors or other people in the Department know they 
can come to me, and I will provide a forum for discussion and, 
hopefully, resolution of this. I've found that — that getting 
all our cards on the table, having people in the room who can 
look at each other and talk to each other, tell how they feel, 
often leads to resolution of a problem before it gets that far. 

So, my point here is, reduce the number the ever 
gets that far so you don't have to worry about whether it takes 
six months or way over. 

Secondly — 



27 

1 

SENATOR PETRIS: How long does it take now? Do you 
2 J 

have a measurement yet? 
3 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, I don't know what the average 

4 li 

is for the Department, but there's enough examples, as 

5 li 

IMs. Menefee mentioned, where we exceed the 180-day standard. 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 



B 



14 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



IjEven if it's one, it's unacceptable. 

So, I don't have a number. I know we're over, so at 
least in some cases, we should be fixing that. 

The other approach I would take, Senator, is we need 

li 
i 

;|to sensitize our managers to different cultural backgrounds. 

Oftentimes, people say and do things inadvertently, not 

II 

intending that they be hurtful in any way. And by better 

^educating our managers as part of their ongoing development as 

supervisors — and I don't just mean basic supervisory training. 

I mean how to supervise folks from different cultural 

backgrounds , and what it means. Those kind of educational tools 

which, again, prevent the problem before it becomes a problem 

would be my techniques and are my techniques for solving the 

fundamental problem. 

We have put 600 of our 800 supervisors and managers 

in our Department through that — that training regimen already. 

I; 

And it will be an ongoing thing, not only for our new managers 

I 

ii 

as they come on, but it will be supplemental every year or two 

:for refresher stuff for our managers. 

II 

The point I'd make about myself, personally, and I 
feel it's important to mention this, is sometimes my — my 
accessibility and openness will turn around and bite me. I 



I I . . 28 

accept that risk. 

2 

In Ms. Menefee's case, when she did work in Medi-Cal, 

3 

[there was an issue and a problem that she had taken to the 

4 

'I 

Office of Civil Rights. And ultimately I found in her favor; I 

found that discrimination had occurred, and I issued her a 

6 

i|formal written letter of apology, in addition to some other 

7 I 

elements of the agreement. 

8 j 

So, when I find it, it's going to be dealt with when 

9 jl 

lilt's brought to my attention. 

10 

SENATOR PETRIS : There ' s another very serious problem 

» :! 

involving the case that was mentioned previously. Six Black men 

li 

12 

filed a discrimination complaint, and they went through the 

13 j 

usual interviews, and statements, and so forth, at the lower 



14 

15 



16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



agency level before it came up to the higher level and 
eventually wound up in court. And it's alleged that the 
Department admitted in court that they had lost the tapes and 
files, which is reminiscent of some rather ugly incidents at the 
national level. I won't into the 17 -minute tape, but I just 
did. 

Are you familiar with that particular problem? 

Now, again, it's something prior to your time, so 
what I'm doing, I'm not criticizing you for any of this. You 
can't be held responsible, but I hope you're taking vigorous 
steps to correct that situation ad eliminate those kinds of 
things . 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. 

I'm not in a position where I can comment on the 



29 

i 

■case, because it is in litigation. 

But in reference to the issue you raised, the tape 
recordings that are made of all interviews, I have no excuses 
for that. I worked for the Department; I'm in charge of large 
|parts of the Department. I take responsibility that we did not 
have systems in place to make sure that — that special 
^situations, where the records are going to be important, are 
kept. Not all of them were erased, but it was done accidentally 



i 
9 

and without malice by individual in our personnel who was not 

given proper direction that these things need to be kept, 
n 

r It's inexcusable. It won't happen again. We've 

12 j 

jtaken steps internally to make sure it doesn't happen again. 



13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATOR PETRIS: Are you convinced it was accidental 
and not purposeful? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: The people that I have asked to look 
into that, the people in the Director's Office who I trust a 
lot, responded to my specific request that that question be 
(answered, and they have convinced me that that's the case. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What is the current effort being 
made in closing the gap for Hispanic minorities? That's another 
one of the complaints in the past. Are you working on that? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. 

In fact, when I look at the — the area that we're 
most underrepresented in the Department, it is in exactly that 
area. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, Mr. Torres, whom you know, has 
frequently reminded us of that. 






30 

1 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: And he frequently reminds me of it, 

2 jj 

too . He does . 

It's going to be extremely difficult in a situation 

4 

where the Department's not growing at all to make huge strides 

5 j 

jin this area in the next year or two. In fact, I think our 
6 

challenge, and we have our Office of Civil Rights developing a 

7 ! i 

plan, is if the Department goes into a layoff situation, or a 

jnongrowth situation where, you know, basically we're not laying 
9 j 

ipeople off, but the people we lose are leaving because they're 
10 if 

jgoing to other departments, is, can we take some pro-active 
ll 

measures to make sure that — that on balance of our workforce, 

.2 !! 

frith what's left, that we don't take any steps backward, and if 

13 jj 

ibossible, make that declining workforce improve. 

14 jj 

Personally, I'm committed to that. The individual I 

15 

hired to fill behind me in the Medi-Cal Program, Jose Fernandez, 

16 

I think was an excellent hire. And my point in saying that is 

17 i| 

Ithat the fundamental way to solve this problem is to increase 



18 
19 
20 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



your candidate pool in such a way that you're in a position 
Ijwhere you can hire underrepresented groups. If you don't get 
them into the candidate pool, let them compete on equal footing, 
you can't solve the problem. 

So, Dr. Coye and I were very aggressive in beating 
the bushes for candidates who could come and interview and be 
considered for the Medi-Cal job. And we took a little extra 
time in filling that position. I ended up staying in it, acting 
for a while, but I think it paid off. 

And that's how I approach those problems. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



31 

I 

SENATOR PETRIS: One of the big problems we face is 
the lack of health care for almost 7 million Calif ornians, 87 
percent of whom work full-time. 

Now, I know the Governor has made some kind of 

i 

r 

suggestion, and he's indicated that he won't go for a single-pay 

I 

plan. He won't go for my plan. He won't go for even the CMA 

plan. 

ii 

Is your Department trying to figure out a solution to 

ii 

Jmake health care coverage available to everybody? 

i 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Obviously, we're involved in the 

little elements of everything that you just mentioned. And we 

stay — we're analyzing and working with groups on — on their 

I! 

specific approaches. 

My actions right now are, don't take any steps in 
terms of — of reducing state government that takes us off in a 
different direction. 

Fundamentally, when solving the health care insurance 
problems for Calif ornians, we see it to be a situation where we 
need, as a society, to define what are priorities are: what 
services do we want to provide to all Calif ornians? And then do 
|a good job in doing those. Take whatever fat there is we can 
out of the system through better planning, but basically say, if 
we have X amount of money, what can we buy for those 
individuals. 

We are going to be in a position, I think, in the 

I 

ijshort-term here, where programs like Medi-Cal may be shrinking. 

Ii 
i 

We should be using this opportunity to turn — to make Medi-Cal 






32 

l 

look like something we want it to look like when — when the 
2 

dust settles and we start building towards a larger health 

3 

insurance solution. 

4 I 

The way we're going to approach that, if I have 

5 ,: 

anything to say about it in the budget solution, is, we must set 
6 

very strict priorities, very clear priorities, about what we're 

7 

going to protect. In my world, that's basic primary and 

8 

preventive care in the Medi-Cal Program. We can't mess with 
9 ; 

that, because that's going to be the fundamental building block 

10 

for whatever we create after the budget situation is settled. 
11 J 

We may have to be very creative in finding new funding 

12 

mechanisms . 

13 

My experience in looking at this problem is that this 

14 ji 

jjust going to require some more money, and we should define what 



15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

I 

I 

20 



21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



we want, what we're prepared for, and then go after it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have you talked to the Governor 
about that? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. The Governor and I don't 
speak, except once. 

There ' s a lot of people in between me and the 

L 
Governor . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, maybe you can pass the word. 

He's made it very clear, forget about any new money, 

i 

,you know. And I understand the current situation, but there are 

I 
basic needs that need to be met. 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I was on a panel with you one night, 

i 

the Channel 13 thing, and a point you made, I think, is that 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



33 
there are efficiencies and money within the system that, if 
better allocated, could help fund this. You know, it doesn't 
have to all be new money. 

If we're prepared to make some hard choices about 
what our priorities are, maybe what we don't need to have on 
every corner, I think we may find there's a whole ton of money 
within the health care system — I don't just mean Medi-Cal; I 
don't mean the stuff that the State of California funds right 
now. But when you look at what Calif ornians spend on health 
care, there is some real opportunities for reshaping the pie 
that, in my mind, mean more money. You brought it from 
somewhere else in the system. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, that's what my bill does, and 

I 'm not here — 

i' 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, I've heard you say that, too. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — to be an advocate of my bill, but 

it's clear we have over 1500 insurance carriers, separate 

entities. Each of them has ten or more plans. Tremendous 
ii 
duplication. And three major studies have shown we get an 

enormous saving if we go to a single-pay. 

I would urge you to examine that, in view of the 
Governor's apparent absolute refusal to approve, or even look 
at, a single-pay system. He hasn't explained why he's opposed 
to it. The General Accounting Office study shows a savings of 
$67 billion, just moving the paperwork, centralizing the 
(paperwork. 

The New England Journal of Medicine study shows $83 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



34 
billion, based on 1987 figures, nationally, and updates that for 
1990 to $135 billion, without cutting any doctors' fees, or 
hospital fees, but simply cutting down on the paper. That's an 
enormous savings . 

It seems to me that the Governor has to be persuaded 
to a least examine those studies, and before he concludes 
finally that he just doesn't want to entertain any single-pay 
approach. 

Okay. I have a lot of letters supporting your 
nomination, including people from the county where I live. 
Most, almost all, the complaints are from within your shop. 

Now, that tells me, people dealing with you from the 
outside are happy, but some people closer to you, on a day-to- 
day basis, are the ones that are unhappy. I guess that's why we 
politicians are in trouble. Those that see us all the time 
through the press, at least, are unhappy. 

Do you care to comment on that? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I could comment at great length. 

I don't want to get into a whole lot of detail, 
although I'd be happy to talk to anybody individually about the 
circumstances of — of the letters that have come in from our 
own employees. I think that there's another side of those 
stories that needs to be told, and I'd be — I'd welcome the 
opportunity to do that, but I don't think it's appropriate that 
those kind of things be — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, maybe you can I can talk about 
it. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



35 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'll be happy to, anytime you can. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We've already talked about some of 
the problems . 

Let me conclude with SB 127. Several of the 
complaints have been that people interested in that bill have 
had problems getting you to commit, and after committing, to sit 
down and really talk about it. They're accusing you of 
misstating the facts of the bill, and throwing up all kinds of 
obstacles . 

Now, you're entitled to have an opinion on a bill. 
It's the style and manner that they're complaining about, coming 
up with new objections at a meeting that's supposed to consider 
old objections, a lot of changes, and so forth. 

You don't need to comment on that unless you want to, 
but that is a serious complaint that ' s been made from more than 
one source . 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I recognize that, Senator. You and I 
have chatted about it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: But I think, you know, I'm probably 
about 180 degree around on that issue. And unless the other 
Committee Members have additional questions, I won't get into it 
in great detail, but I disagree strongly with the points that 
were made by — by that group. 

I think also the letters that you have received from 
other providers would indicate that — that the suggestion that 
I'm not accessible, or that I am not to be trusted, is — is not 



36 

i •' 

the case. In fact, in the case of SB 127, when I met with the 

2 

individual who — who wrote the letter you're talking about, I 
3 

think I made it clear that my position had been fairly 

consistent all along, and it was my view that this was a policy 

5 i 

disagreement between he and I . 

Nevertheless, a significant amount of work has been 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



i| 

going on between the Department of Health Services and Health 

il 

ii 

and Welfare Agency and Senator Russell's office in addressing 

i 
i 

jthe fundamental issues that underlied their concern in SB 127. 
This work was done by — by Secretary Gould himself, by Dr. Coye 

i, 

iiherself, by me and my medical team. 

And in fact, I got — my doctor in San Bernardino get 

ij 

jja letter from Dr. Potkin, who has been an individual who's been 

fvery critical of me, suggesting that we'd made some considerable 

I 

progress in our relationships in resolving some of the 

underlying problems. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How long ago was that? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I can get the letter for you. I 

guess don't have it here. About six months ago, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's all I have. 
i 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there anyone else in the 

jaudience to testify? 

i 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move recommendation of approval of 

i 

the confirmation. 

i 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 



37 

iMr. Rodriguez's confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

I! 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRI S: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 
I 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 



16 

17 



confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 



MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for your time. 
18 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: On the next two appointments, we 

19 jl 

|!are going to take testimony on Mr. Marz Garcia, Director of the 



20 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Office of Administrative Law, and Mr. James M. Strock, Secretary 

I! 

of the California Environmental Protection Agency. We'll take 
Mr. Garcia first. 

I don't intend to come to a vote on either one of 
jthem this afternoon. 

We will break for five minutes. 

I will be here for ten minutes more after that, then 
i; I have a doctor's appointment. 






38 

l 

Senator Petris, you will be presiding. But I don't 

2 

intend to come to a vote on either one of them. 

3 

We'll break for five minutes. 

4 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

SENATOR PETRIS: The meeting will come to order. 
6 

Senator Roberti may not be back. I've been asked to 

7 J 

proceed. We have a long way to go. 

8 ! ! 

Senator Garcia, Director of the Office of 

9 

Administrative Law. 
10 

MR. GARCIA: Senator Petris, Senator Beverly, Senator 
11 

Mello, it's nice to be back. 
12 

SENATOR PETRIS: We always ask our appointees, and 

13 ' ! 

you've been through this before, I guess. 

14 

MR. GARCIA: Not as an appointee, Senator. 

15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATOR PETRIS: Anyway, we ask them to tell us why 
in the world we should support the appointment, so you can give 
us a brief — 

MR. GARCIA: Well, Senator, I haven't brought anyone 
here to give my background or recommendation, because I don't 
want to embarrass them. I'll do it myself. 

I think that the reason you should support the 
appointment is because I'm qualified. I'm both a lawyer, I have 
a couple law degrees, and educationally, I'm an economist and a 
business person. I've been out in the business world. 

And I've also been in government, and I understand 
the process and regulations. 

We have a very difficult situation a OAL. We lost 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



39 
about half of our people this year because of budget cuts. I'm 
going to lose some more, but they have risen to the occasion. 
They — it's become challenging for us, but there are excellent 
people, and I think that we are making some good changes over 
there. We're going to be able to handle the workload, if it 

doesn ' t greatly increase . 

1 

What I have found is that by taking their suggestions 

and making some recommendations, and then getting feedback from 

I, 

them, that we have come up with a series of excellent solutions 

to a lot of the internal problems . 

li 

What that agency needs now more than anything else is 
leadership and commitment and good management, and actually, 
'there, they really are the managers, and I just kind of oversee 

it and help them do things. 

ij 

So, I think I'm an excellent appointee for this 

position, and probably lots of others, but this is the one I'm 

tin, and I like it. I enjoy it, and I'd like to continue. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We usually go into questions after 

the public has testified, but if any of the Members want to ask 

!!questions now, it's okay. I have one. 

Can you define the mission of the Office of 
i 1 
Administrative Law, very briefly? 

MR. GARCIA: Yes. 

In my own view, the primary mission is to protect the 

I! 

iirights of the public to comment on regulations, and to protect 
the intent of the Legislature in the statutes. 

I say that the major problem that we often have is 



I 



•2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



40 
that agencies, in their zeal to do good, overstep their 
authority and the boundaries that were created in the statutes . 

So, I protect — I think I protect the legislative intent and 

l| 

the public's right to comment. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, are there any persons here 

1 

desiring to testify in support of Mr. Garcia? All right. 

Does anyone here desire to testify in opposition? 

II 

Senator Garamendi. 

We still call everybody "Senator". Commissioner 
Garamendi . 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: Senator Petris, Senator 
;Beverly, Senator Mello, it's with considerable regret that I 
Come before you today to ask you, in the strongest of terms, to 
Ijreject this appointment. 

What is at stake here is the — is the public's 

jjbelief in our governmental processes. In 1988, the public voted 

If or a law that called for, among other things, a rollback of 

rates on their insurance, and also the implementation of a rate 

;|setting procedure, and several other matters. This was 

ii 

jlProposition 103. 

During the course of the ensuing three years, the 

ii 

insurance industry has made every effort possible to thwart the 
will of the people. In the last 18 months, we have set in 
process a series of procedures and rules and regulations to 

fully implement Proposition 103. That effort is basically 

ii 
embodied in a series of regulations which we have promulgated, 

land which we have sent to the Office of Administrative Law. 



1 

II 
2 



41 
Prior to the arrival of Mr. Garcia in that job, these 
regulations were adopted after review, after comment, after 

3 

public hearing, usually as emergency regulations, and progress 

4 

was being made. 
5 

What is at stake, and what you gentlemen are voting 

on in confirming or not confirming this individual, is more than 

7 

$2 billion of rollbacks that are owed to the public by the 
8 

insurance industry. Mr. Garcia has consistently, at every 
9 

opportunity, derailed the effort to provide those rollbacks and 

10 

to meet the obligation of the law. 

n 

This has been done in a manner that is contrary to 

12 | 

,|the intent of the law as written by the people of the State of 



13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



California and enacted by their own vote. It is contrary to the 
clear instructions that he has in the Administrative Code to 
review the regulations. It is also contrary to the Governor's 
own explicit instructions to him. 

For three consecutive times, we have brought to him 
emergency regulations. We sometime — in the early stages, we 
modified those regulations at his request, and then he rejected 
them. 

Everytime we get close to a rollback, everytime we 
get the process moving, Mr. Garcia steps forward and derails it. 
Most recently, emergency regulations that were twice before 
approved by the Governor, yesterday he derailed the process 
again by rejecting the emergency regulations that had twice 
previously been approved. 

It comes at a particularly critical moment; a moment 



42 

■ 

in which rebates are at hand. Just ten days ago, Mercury 
Insurance Company, recognizing that the rebates were a reality, 

that the law was clear and the regulations were equally clear, 

il 

agreed to a $45 million rebate for nearly 200,000 policy 
jholders. We are in the course now of several administrative 
hearings, specifically Geico and State Farm, State Farm being 
the biggest insurance company in the State of California. 

Today, as a result of Mr. Garcia' s inappropriate and 

9 

wrong-headed action, both of those administrative law cases are 

10 

off calendar. It is, therefore, unknown what the result will be 



n 
12 



13 



for the policy holders of these two companies and for others. 

Furthermore, we are involved in private negotiations 



with other insurance companies that could very well result in 

14 

additional agreements for rollbacks . As you might well be — 



15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



you might well imagine, we have unable to reach those insurance 

companies to continue the negotiations since Mr. Garcia derailed 

jthe regulations yesterday. 

All he needed to do was to allow the emergency 

regulations to continue. 
i 

Now, Proposition 103 is not the only issue at hand, 

and rollbacks are not the only issue at hand. We have other 

regulations in Proposition 103, the rate setting regulations, 

that are also jeopardized by Mr. Garcia. 

I suppose you could like or dislike Proposition 103. 

i 

Your views on that are your own. 

But I would hope that you would dislike the 

i 
fraudulent activities that rip off millions of Calif ornians when 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



43 
they are exposed to unlicensed insurance companies selling 
products in the State of California. There's been a 
proliferation of these insurance companies. We are involved now 
in a major crisis of uninsured — unlicensed insurance companies 
selling fraudulent and useless insurance products to the people 
of California. 

For nearly a year now, we have been attempting to 
yrite regulations, to clarify the power and the responsibilities 
,jand the law, with regard to unlicensed companies. All of our 
^efforts to protect the public through the regulatory process 
have been derailed, destroyed, by Mr. Garcia. 

Now, the question is yours. As the Senator Rules 
jCommittee , the question is yours. Do you want Proposition 103 
'implemented? Do want the rollbacks? Do you want us to proceed 
ito protect the public from the fraudulent activities that are 
occurring by unlicensed insurance companies? 

If you do, you must vote to reject this man. He 
Istands in the way of the implementation of Position 103, and 

Istands in the way of our effort to rid this state of fraudulent 

!| 

'insurance companies. 

I urge you, when it comes time to vote, to reject 
this nomination. 

Furthermore, I've given you a series of information 
pieces. The first is a blow-by-blow description of the 
lidisgraceful actions of the Office of Administrative Law in the 
way in which it has dealt with Proposition 103 before and after 
Mr. Garcia 's arrival. 



44 
l 

Prior to Mr. Garcia' s arrival, if you'll look at this 
2 

document called "MARZ GARCIA AND PROPOSITION 103: TEN MONTHS OF 
3 jj 

OBSTRUCTION", you will note, laid out here in the record, that 

4 

the Office of Administrative Law routinely approved the previous 
3 I 

Commissioner's emergency regulations, and regulations regarding 



6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



J103. After his arrival, he has taken the law into his own hand, 
|into his own weird interpretation of what it might be, and has 
summarily derailed the process, despite the Governor's 
overruling him. 

Not only do I ask you to vote no, I ask the Governor 
of the State of California to remove this man from office so 
that rebates can go forward. It's time to get this thing behind 
us. 

We also included in this packet is a recent article, 
dated June 7th, from the L.A. Daily News f speaking of "The 
offshore Insurance Crisis," the unlicensed insurance companies 
that I spoke to a few moments ago. 

Now, Mr. Garcia will undoubtedly say that our 
regulations do not allow the insurance companies an opportunity 
to comment. Baloney 1 They comment 'til the cows come home. 
They comment in volumes that stack tens of feet high, and fill 
cases and cases of boxes . There was plenty of opportunity to 
comment . 

And not only can they comment, they can take my 
rulings on what their rebate liabilities are, and what their 
obligations may be under the rate setting, and go to court, and 
that is precisely what Twentieth Century is doing as we speak. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 



45 

And in fact, it may be argued in court within the next few days 

I 

that the Twentieth Century case be thrown out because there are 
no regulations as a result of Mr. Garcia' s action. 

There's plenty of time for comment. 

Mr. Garcia may also say that the courts are not 
Clear. Gentlemen, the courts are quite clear. 

This is a Court decision about my regulations, 

telling Mr. Garcia to — excuse me, telling Twentieth Century 

I 

|that they had to go ahead. They had to complete the hearings, 

il 

and there is also attached to this a ruling by the Appellate 

ii 

Court saying the same thing, that in fact emergency exists, and 

ii 

that they should go ahead. 



Why, Mr. Garcia, you have derailed this is beyond my 

14 |i 

understanding. Why you consistently try to terminate 

15 

Proposition 103, I don't understand. 

16 ! 

But I want you out of the way. The people of 

17 

California want their rebates. The Governor of the State of 

18 ( 

California should remove you, and if he doesn't, this body 

19 II 

Ishould. 

20 lj 

SENATOR PETRIS: Any questions of Mr. Garamendi? 

21 f 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: Thank you. 

22 

SENATOR PETRIS: Would you like to respond at this 

23 il 

time? 

24 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: We'd like to make a statement in 

25 ll 

opposition at your pleasure. 

26 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let's give him a chance to respond 

27 

while it's fresh in his mind. These things sometimes drag out a 

28 






46 

l 

little bit, so we'll call on you very shortly. 
2 

MR. GARCIA: Yes, Senator Petris and Members. 

3 

I won't get into the legal problems with the file, 

4 

but I will tell you that there's a very simple way to resolve 

5 

this situation, and that is any agency, including the Department 
6 

of Insurance, has the right to go ahead and ask the court for a 

7 

Writ to force us to adopt the regulations . 
8 I 

And this is probably a very convenient time to do it, 
9 

because the Twentieth Century case is pending now, and there is 
10 

a judge that has been assigned by the State of California to 
11 

hear the insurance issues. The regulations should go before 



12 

13 
14 
15 
16 

17 

II 

18 > 

19 

20 

i 
21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



that person, and then I think they will either uphold our legal 
point of view, or the Commissioner's point of view. 

But that's a very simple way to do it. They have the 
resources. They have millions of dollars and legal talent, and 
they can do that. 

We would welcome that. And that's also consistent 
with the Governor's decision when the Governor overruled OAL. 
It was not done on our legal merits. In fact, they pretty much 
agreed with us, but they said, "Let's — I'm going to give you 
the emergency. You've been abusing the process, but I'm going 
to give you the emergency and to get it into court . " 

And the — what happened in this case, specifically 
on Monday, is, they brought the same regulation back early. 
It's good for another week; it would have been good for another 
week, and it was really doomed to failure because they made no 
attempt to go through the administrative procedure process and 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



47 
make those regulations permanent. 

We had, under the law, we had no option. Those 
regulations are invalid. We would — I elected my discretion 
not to re-adopt those regulations on an emergency basis. 

I would suggest to them that they now take us into 
court and get the situation resolved, and stop wasting 
everybody's time, embarrassing other people. 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI : Senator, that is outright 
hogwash! In fact, the regulations are valid. There is a Court 
decision. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand — 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: The regulations are valid — 

SENATOR PETRIS: — from Mr. Garamendi ' s — 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: — and we need to go ahead. 

What's happening here, what the people of California 
don ' t need is another lawsuit . 

What they need to have is this process going forward. 

Go to court . Spend more money on lawyers . We have 
seen over $100 million spent by the insurance industry alone on 
lawyers trying to stop this . 

SENATOR PETRIS: In a more lengthy statement than he 
just gave us, Mr. Garamendi goes into more detail. I remember 
he does cite at least one Court decision. I guess it's the one 
he has there. 

And one of the claims is that in every one of the 
reasons that you cite, you seem to be a mouthpiece for the 
industry by echoing the same arguments they've made in court, 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



48 
and in hearings , involving the regulations . 
MR. GARCIA: That — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that just a coincidence? 
MR. GARCIA: No, that's not true, Senator. 
Some — some of the comments that the industry makes 
we agree with, others we don't. And we don't use them in our 
analysis. But there are some that we agree with, some we don't. 
But that's all part of the public comment process. That's the 
only way that they can get into the record on an emergency 
basis, is that they write us comments on it. 

This last file we got something, oh, about 70 pages 
worth of comments which the Insurance Commissioner chose not to 
respond to. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you comment on the fraud, 
ant i- fraud aspect? Mr. Garamendi says that last August, you 
disapproved regulations that had previously been approved by the 
Office to prevent surplus line brokers from steering 
unsuspecting drivers into unlicensed, not admitted insurance, 
rather than the assigned risk plan. It says: 

"Every day, hundreds of California 
insurance policyholders seek to have 
their claims paid from unlicensed 
insurance companies only to discover 
that it is little more than a post 
office box somewhere in the 
Caribbean. " 
And he charges that ' s a direct result of your dumping these 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



49 
regulations, which are done pursuant to 103 on the anti-fraud 
aspect of the initiative. 

MR. GARCIA: Senator, the regulations that I think 
you're referring to are surplus line broker regulations, and 
they're not really part of 103. It's a different statute. 

In the statutory scheme set up by the Legislature, 
when you have a noncompetitive market in the State of 
California, brokers can go out of state to secure insurance for 
their clients. And it is not a prior approval type of system. 

The Department of Insurance tried to set up 
regulations that required prior approval, and that's not 
consistent with the law. That would have violated the law. So, 
we disapproved those regulations and told them, "You cannot set 
up a prior approval scheme . " 

And we ' re still working with them on trying to 
develop a system where they can control some of the fraud that ' s 
going on. I don't think that — I don't know how extensive it 
is. But there are some insurance companies out there that are 
weak and that probably shouldn't be offering insurance in the 
State of California, and it is a problem. It should be 
addressed by the Legislature, but there are some things that can 
be done, and we're working with them and have been for weeks on 
trying to get through regulations that are consistent with the 
law to control the problem. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What is a noncompetitive market? 

MR. GARCIA: Well, you have high risk drivers. Very 
often they can't get insurance; no one wants to insure them, so 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



50 
they can go into the assigned risk pool, or something else, or 
they can go out of the state. 

So, when you have half or more of the insurance 
companies in the State of California not willing to provide that 
type of insurance, then a broker is eligible to go out of state 
and try to find that type of insurance for them. They call that 
a noncompetitive market. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Garamendi . 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: The fundamental point that I 
think this Committee needs to be aware of is that nowhere in the 
Administrative Code is the judgment of a department allowed to 
be substituted by the Office of Administrative Law. Their job 
is different. 

And I would point out to Mr. Garcia that he does not 
know the law. The law that he is referring is the surplus line 
law that was enacted in 1937. 

A few things have intervened since 1937, not the 
least of which is Proposition 103, one section of which says 
"take all comers", specifically requiring the auto insurance 
companies to cover everybody who may want to apply and who is a 
good driver. 

Secondly, a second law was the enactment of the 
assigned risk program, which is specifically set up to provide a 
residual market for those who cannot get insurance in the normal 
marketplace. There is, in fact, in auto insurance available 
coverage from either of those two. 

Mr. Garcia has simply decided in his own judgment, 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



51 
based upon a faulty knowledge of the law, and some tortured 
logic, that insurance consumers should not be protected by the 
licensing laws of the State of California. In other words, it's 
perfectly fine in a free marketplace for fraud to exist. 

We reject that logic. We think he should be rejected 
because he enunciates that logic. 

It is also clear that the regulations that we have 

promulgated are not prior approval regulations, but as specified 

i 

by the 1937 law, they do allow us to evaluate the financial 

|| 

stability, reputation, integrity of unlicensed insurers. That's 

what the law says . And that happens to be Insurance Code 

Section 1765.1. 

j 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

You wanted to testify? Do you want to come forward? 

MR. ROSENFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of 

jl 

the Committee. 

My name is Harvey Rosenfield. I'm the Chairman of 
Voter Revolt, the grassroots organization which sponsored 
Proposition 103. 

With me today is Ed Howard. He's an attorney with 
the firm of Hall and Phillips. That is the law firm which has 
assisted us in the implementation of Proposition 103, including 
fighting over 67 lawsuits, and the endless delays that have been 
introduced by rogue administrative agencies intruding into the 
process of the implementation of the initiative. 

Mr. Howard's available if you wish to hear a more 
detailed presentation of the points that Mr. Garcia has raised 



52 
in the past, and in his decision yesterday, and the actual 
validity of them and response to them. 

Three and a half years ago, Proposition 103 was 
passed by the voters. It was a fair and square election. The 
insurance industry spent $80 million; they lost. We relied on a 
lot of volunteers; we won. 

Since 103 passed, the initiative has basically been 

the subject of a thievery by unelected bureaucrats working with 

i 

the insurance industry to delay implementation of the 

initiative, in the process disgracing state government, and 

i 

undermining the voters ' respect for democracy . 

And whether you care, whether you agree or disagree 

with Proposition 103, everybody in this building knows that the 

voters are disenchanted with the democratic institutions in our 

I 

state and in our nation, and what's happened to Prop. 103 for 

many of them is emblematic of why. 

Now, the sabotage that's been conducted against 

Proposition 103 began with the prior Insurance Commissioner, who 

was an unelected appointed official, who, through working with 

the industry, and encouraging lawsuits, managed to essentially 

21 ;| 

delay any implementation of the measure whatsoever for two 

22 :! 

years . 

Ironically, that worked to our advantage, because in 
their wisdom, the voters, as part of Proposition 103, 

25 

■established an elected Insurance Commissioner who the voters 

26 ! 

knew would get the job done, because the Commissioner would be 

27 

accountable directly to the public. And in fact, because 

28 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 



20 



53 






l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 



18 
19 
20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Commissioner Gillespie had done absolutely nothing to move 

Proposition 103 forward, Commissioner Garamendi was able to take 

office and begin from scratch. And although we have some 

^substantial disagreements with him, we don't think his 

regulations are perfect from the consumer's perspective, he has 

done the work that the public expected would be done when the 

initiative was passed, and when they put him in office. 

So, when Roxani Gillespie's gone, and the insurance 
ji 
.industry loses their person in state government who is 

[protecting them from Proposition 103 's implementation, what 

happens? All of a sudden, an obscure bureaucrat named Marz 

Garcia pops out of the woodwork and decides to reject numerous 

regulations which are needed to implement the first provision of 

Proposition 103, the rollbacks. Maybe its most controversial 

provision, but just one of dozens of provisions, all of which 

!;are going to need regulations, and approval by OAL, as long as 

OAL exists, and then implementation. 

I was astonished to hear Mr. Garcia just now suggest 
that his mission was, number one, to protect the right of the 
public to comment, and number two, to protect the intention of 
the Legislature. 

The public's right to comment — first of all, the 
pubic commented in the election. And their right to comment has 
been trammeled, and their right to a speedy enforcement of the 
law has been destroyed by the insurance industry's ability to 
influence unelected officials in state government, like 
Mr. Garcia, with the net result that 103 still isn't 



54 
1 

•implemented. 
2 

And yesterday's decision, if permitted to maintain 
3 

its viability, if some action is not taken, Proposition 103 will 

4 

not be implemented for two or more years if Mr. Garcia' s 

5 i 

decision of yesterday stands. 

6 

The insurance industry, by contrast, is really who 

7 I 

i|Mr. Garcia is protecting, because the tens and thousands of 

8 

pages, and the hundreds or millions of dollars they have spent, 

9 

jthey have overwhelmed the comment process. It's hard to imagine 
10 

|jthat any attorney, or lobbyist, or expert in the insurance 
11 

industry would have anything more to say about Prop. 103. It's 
12 ft 

'all been said by them already. 

13 

As far as protecting the intent of the Legislature, 

14 || 

jhow can anybody seriously suggest to you, Members of the Senate, 

15 ii 

ithat they are trying to protect the intent of the Legislature, 

16 I 

Jwhen they are, in essence, overriding the law that the public 

17 || 

|lenacted, overruling the Insurance Commissioner the public 

18 

^elected to implement that law, and turning it on its face so 
19 

that it cannot go into effect? 

20 

I think that is a disgraceful hypocrisy to say on the 
21 

record, with a reporter here, that that is what his mission is. 

22 

Is that the double-speak that we have arrived at this year? 

23 

Well, we have looked very closely at Mr. Garcia' s 

24 i 1 

^statements and — behind his decisions. As I mentioned, our 

25 j 

'attorney is available if you would like to hear a much more 

26 

(detailed and legal analysis of the basis for those decisions, or 

27 

'lack thereof. 

28 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



55 
i But it struck me that, at a recent hearing, held by 

Senator Torres, an oversight hearing in Los Angeles several 

I, 

months ago on this — on the implementation of Proposition 103, 
:We actually got the truth about what's in Mr. Garcia 's mind when 
he issues these decisions to stop 103 in its tracks. 

Under intense questioning from Senator Torres, 
Mr. Garcia blurted out that the regulations, in his view, were 
confiscatory. Now confiscatory is the code word, the legal 
term, that the insurance industry has been using since 103 
jipassed for the notion that they cannot afford the rollbacks 
because it deprives them of their constitutional right to a fair 
rate of return. 

Here, in a nutshell, is the issue. Here is the 
unlawful action of Mr. Garcia. He has no authority to interpret 
the United States Constitution, or the California Constitution, 
or even Proposition 103, from a policy perspective. 

His job is to make sure that regulations that come 
out of administrative agencies comply with the procedural 
requirements of state law. 

By saying, blurting out, that his concern was that 
these regulations were confiscatory, he was substituting his 
policy judgment — upon which I think he has precious little 
information to base it — for the Commissioner's decision, and 
then for the court's decision. 

103 took the responsibility for insurance policy out 
of the hands of an unelected official of government and put it 
into the hands of the Insurance Commissioner, who is now 



56 

1 

elected. Mr. Garcia has created a special court of insurance 

2 

industry appeals for those companies that are still unwilling to 

3 

cooperate and comply with the law that ' s on the books . 

4 

The industry knows that it will not prevail against 
5 j 

Proposition 103. It lost at the ballot box; it lost in the 

6 

jcourts so far. Its profits were up 35 percent last year, and it 

7 

knows that no one is going to accept its claim that it cannot 
8 

ijafford to rollback its rates, and that rates should not be 

9 

regulated. 
10 

So, what they have done instead is resorted to 
ll j 

'ibureaucratic sabotage to evade the requirements of the law. 
12 

I would like to say one thing about this process. I 
13 

iwas very disturbed to learn that there would be no up or down 

14 

ivote today on this nomination, on this appointment. 
15 

As you are all aware, the public is very disenchanted 

16 || 

with its democratic institutions. And to be fair, since the 

17 

Ipassage of Prop. 103, there was very little that the Legislature 

18 j 

ijcould do to advance the implementation of the initiative, 
19 ;! 

because it was in the administrative process . 

20 

Today, however, you have an opportunity to do 
21 

something. You have an opportunity to take the single 

22 

individual who is now in state government blocking Proposition 

23 \ 

103 's rollbacks, and believe it, the rest of the regulations 

24 ij 

that will come to the OAL after the rollback, and you can send 



25 
26 

27 
28 ; l 



him packing. You can remove him from office and send the 
Governor a message that somebody with more of a commitment to 
Proposition 103 should be in his place. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 



57 

We are — nobody wants to offend the Governor. 

Nobody wants to humiliate him. Everybody recognizes that there 

are delicate negotiations going on for the budget. 

But the fact remains that the motorists of California 

did not cause the budget crisis, and it is not fair to balance 

the budget, or to delay the rollbacks that they're entitled to, 

'I 

and to ensure that government works in their favor, because of 

these budget negotiations. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Just a second. 

Let me point out to you that those same motorists 
elected the Governor, and we're having our battles with the 
governor on the budget. 

MR. ROSENFIELD: I understand. 

The Governor has made this appointment. Mr. Garcia 
lis the Governor's albatross. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The Governor is their appointment, 
and I don't want them to dodge that responsibility and dump on 
Bus, like they do everyday. 

MR. ROSENFIELD: Absolutely. I understand that, 



20 

Senator. 

21 j 

My point is that the issue of Proposition 103 's 

22 

implementation is a matter that's separate from the budget 
23 

process. And the voters are astonished that, three and a half 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



years later, so little has been accomplished because of the 
insurance industry's ability to manipulate individuals within 
the state Executive Branch. For those voters, they are entitled 
to rapid disposition in a clear situation like this, in which an 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



58 

individual is abusing his authority, is misusing his power. An 

jjemployee of government is wasting taxpayer dollars, is even 

defying some of the decisions of the courts, which have 

explicitly addressed the arguments that Mr. Garcia has put forth 

which the industry issued for him, his decisions, and the courts 

i! 

lihave rejected them. 

I ask you not just for the purpose of allowing 

i 

Proposition 103 to go forward, but more importantly, to give 
Jthem a renewed sense of faith in the integrity of the democratic 
{institutions of this state, that you dispose of this nomination 
Irapidly by rejecting it. 

i 

That concludes my comments. If you'd like it, if it 
ilwould be useful to have our counsel go through the technical 
I points of the decision issued yesterday, we'd be glad to have 
iit. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I think that'll be helpful, but 

jfirst I want to ask if any of the Members have questions of you. 
I 

SENATOR MELLO: I just want to say a couple things. 

The demands, expectations, for the rollback have not 
igone away. Every weekend, when I'm home, I get asked that by 
[many persons, and I go to Commissioner Garamendi, asking about 
lithe rollback. At one time I was told the check is in the mail. 
After all these delays, the mail has been delayed. 

The people up there know and want and expect that 

rollback as expeditiously as possible. 
ii 

When Mr. Garcia said the solution is simple, about 

ten minutes ago, they can just go to court and get a writ, the 



thing that people are most disinclined to see is government 

2 

suing government. Who pays the bills? 

3 

The taxpayers expect a rollback and are going to be 

4 ij 

^pushing for it. I think we ought to be able to resolve our 

5 

issues without putting one branch of government suing another 

6 , 

branch, spending the taxpayers' money. 

7 ■ 

The other thing, it's highly embarrassing for Mr. 

8 

Garcia, his office, to be overruled by the Governor on two 

9 

^occasions or three. 

10 ;! 

MR. ROSENFIELD: Two occasions. 
11 

SENATOR MELLO: It's written by an administrative law 

12 || 

judge, as I understand this. 



13 
14 
15 
16 

17 



It was, I think, Speaker McCarthy, Leo McCarthy, who 
drafted this bill because they were having so many problems with 
departments gong against the intent of the Legislature. They 
were acting differently than implied by the legislation. 



This bill was drafted, and I supported it, because I 
18 

thought there ought to be a branch of government that interprets 

19 

the way the Legislature and the Governor, in signing the law, 

20 

expected it could be implemented. That's the reason for it. 
21 

I think Mr. Garcia, having been overruled by his own 
22 

'Governor, has gone beyond the interpretation, using his opinion 

23 j! 

instead of that of the law or the administration. I don't know. 

24 j 

But I just want to say, people are still expecting 

25 

and demanding their rollbacks from 103, that they voted it in. 

26 

They expect that money to be coming forthwith. 

27 j 

That's something I can't understand, how those delays 

28 



60 
l 

are trying to wear down insurance companies . They ' re wearing 

2 ! 

down the government by filing all of those legal actions, and 

3 ; 

they may have the help of the Director of the Office of 
4 j! 

^Administrative Law assist them along the way. 
5 

It's possible — you said two to three weeks, but my 
6 

guess, Mr. Commissioner, that's wishful thinking. It might be 

7 j 

ten years, or twenty, or never. 

8 i ! 

MR. ROSENFIELD: Senator, I don't think it'll be 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



iftever . 

I can tell you that we're — there's enough, as you 

describe it, public support for it. We're committed to it. We 

are always going to have a Commissioner who, for political 

II 

reasons, if no other reasons, has to make it happen. And the 

law will prevail. 

ii 

But we certainly can't afford these kinds of delays. 

1 

I neglected to state one more thing. In January of 



ithis year, after Mr. Garcia issued his last decision blocking 

18 

ipollback regulations, we filed a Public Records Act request with 



19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



fc>oth the Governor's Office and Mr. Garcia 's office. The 

I 

jfeovernor's Office refused to provide any records of contacts or 

I 

ii 

communications with the insurance industry. But Mr. Garcia 's 
office did comply with the Public Records Act, and these are 
copies of hundreds of communications, back and forth, from 
Mr. Garcia 's office with every conceivable attorney or lawyer 
for the insurance industry. 

This is a record of the kind of influence that exists 

i> 
i, 

|in this issue. Of course, as Mr. Garamendi suggested, there are 



61 

l 

literally tons and tons of insurance industry comments that are 

2 

behind this. 
3 

May I ask our counsel to come forward? 

4 

MR. GARCIA: Can I take a moment to respond to 

5 ; 

Senator Mello? 

6 ; 
One of the problems of the Office of Administrative 

7 

Law is that we are trapped by the law. We have to follow the 

8 
9 

io ! 
ii 

12 
13 
14 
15 

16 
17 

So, we are trapped by the law; the Governor's Office 

18 || 

lis not. 



statutes . 

The Governor does not. That's in the law. The 
Governor did overrule our decision. 

If you read the decision that the Governor made, he 
did not disagree with us on the legal merits. And he agreed 
also that they were an abuse of the emergency process, but he 
said he was going to overrule us simply to get the case before 

ithe judiciary, because we couldn't figure out any way else to 

'i 

'resolve the dispute which was holding up the rebates . 



19 



20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



And I'd like to make — 

SENATOR MELLO: Let me ask you a question, then. 

Mr. Garamendi also showed a court order that, I 
guess, overruled you. 

MR. GARCIA: I don't think that is an accurate 
reading of that, that item, because we're not aware of it. If 
we were involved, they would have told us that. I think that 
that has to do with whether or not insurance company had to 
proceed under the regulations, and it was directed at a 



62 
1 

different party. I don't think it had anything to do with us. 

2 : 

SENATOR MELLO: He represented that, apparently. 
3 

Mr. Chairman, can we ask Mr. Garamendi — 
4 ! 

MR. GARCIA: I'd like to see some of the statements, 
5 

and maybe then we can respond to that. 

6 

The other two points I'd like to make, one, I did not 

7 

support the evidence of the insurance companies in front of 

Senator Torres that they are entitled to fair and reasonable 

9 

return. I was doing — paraphrasing the Cal Farm decision, 

10 j 

which said rate applicants should be allowed to introduce 

n ! 

evidence that demonstrates whether or not the returns that 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 

17 



18 
19 
20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



they're going to be allowed are fair and reasonable. I did not 
say anything about whether the regulations allowed them or not. 

The last point I'd like to make is that 
Mr. Rosenfield was welcome to come to the office and take all of 
these. And this is — what you see here really is evidence of 
what happens when you issue an emergency regulation. The public 
has not had an adequate opportunity to comment. The phones 
start ringing off the hook, if it's controversial. You get 
hundreds of telephone calls. They're essentially the reference 
attorney, and they're asking what is going on, and how can we 
get our input in. You know, when is this thing going to be 
decided. That doesn't — what that represents is lots of calls, 
maybe on this issue and maybe not. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, Mr. Garamendi here, in his 
statement, says that after he gave notice of intent to scrap the 
existing regulations and issued his own rules to expedite, you 



9 
10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

25 : 

26 | 

27 
28 



63 
know, the rollback, over the next nine months, he held public 
hearings, took over 50,000 pages of comments, responded in 
writing to all comments, and then filed the regulations on 
August 2nd. 

So, it seems that there is a voluminous 

participation, to the tune of at least in writing of 50,000 

i 

pages of comments . 

MR. GARCIA: Yes, Senator, there is, and he delivered 
[26 cartons to our office. And we spent the month that we were 
obligated to review them, and we came up with significant 
deficiencies, legal problems with the regulations, and we 
disapproved them. 

They then turned around and immediately issued an 
emergency regulation, which largely was the same as what had 
just gone through. And that is — and that's the case in which 

ithe Governor overruled us, because it became apparent that we 

i 

were locked in a legal debate that was not going to get resolved 

i 

[administratively, so the Governor overruled it for the sole 
[purpose of getting this before the judiciary. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, we have a legal — 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, may I have 
Mr. Garamendi ' s response to the lawsuit, whether or not that was 
overruled? 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: There are — there's no end 
to the ways that these legal issues can confuse even careful and 
knowledgeable observers . 

There are a couple of things that need to be clearly 



64 
l 

understood. Mr. Garcia is currently alleging that these 

2 

regulations should be rejected because they are — because there 
3 

was no opportunity for comment . 

4 

I don't know how to tell you in more straightforward 

5 

language, that just isn't the case. There is more than enough 
6 

lopportunity for people to comment. He cited that himself by 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 



16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



saying the phones were ringing off the hook; he's received all 
kinds — I'd like to know who was calling. I don't think it was 
the consumers . But I know it ' s the insurance companies . He ' s 
receiving comment. 

Secondly, and that's just not the case. There's 
plenty of opportunity for comment on the regulations, the 
emergency regulations themselves, as well as on our actions, and 
we've spoken to that. That the earlier rejection of the 
regulations, the emergency regulations, was based on the 
allegation there wasn't an emergency. 

The Governor didn't see it that way, and he overruled 
Mr. Garcia. That issue was taken to the Superior Court by, and 
in a decision issued December 13th, 1991, by Judge Janavs, she 
jsaid in summary, and I can hand you the whole thing here: 

"Again, as stated above, this Court 
finds the Commissioner's findings 
are credible statements of genuine 
emergency. " 

She found that there was indeed a credible reason for 
jus to issue emergency regs . Furthermore, that was then appealed 
to the Appellate Court in Los Angeles. And the Court said: 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



65 
"The court has read and considered 
the 'application for emergency 
ruling on applicability of CCP 
Section 1094.5(g) and the request 
for immediate stay" filed herein by 
appellants December 17th, 1991, and 
the petition for the writ of 
supersedeas filed December 18, 1991. 
The application and petition are 
denied . " 
In other words, the Appellate Court agreed with Judge 
Janavs; there was an emergency, and there was just cause to go 
ahead with emergency regs . 

All of that is on the record. All of that is in 
place, and we can go through in detail. You can have it all. 

The fact of the matter is this. Mr. Garcia, through 
his power, is stopping our ability and our efforts to proceed 
with the hearings, to proceed with the process of getting the 
rebates to the people of California. He has derailed this. 

The amount of time necessary to get past this latest 
derailment is unknown, but it is surely going to be some time. 
He has been in office now since August. We have been delayed a 
full 50 percent. In other words, three and a half, almost four, 
months now as a result of his actions and the necessity of 
having to go to court, having to go to the Governor, having to 
go through the process. We have won every single time. We'll 
win again. 



66 
l 

But the people of California won't get their rebates 
2 j 

because of this man, because of the Governor's appointee. 
3 

That's the bottom line. 
4 

If he has his way, they'll never get their rebates, 

5 

and they'll never see the implementation of Proposition 103. 
6 

And Lord knows, they also won't see the implementation of laws 

7 

and regulations to prevent them — to protect them from 

8 

^fraudulent companies that are out there, ripping them off today. 

9 I 

This man's got to go! If the people of California 
10 

'are going to see their law implemented, this man has got to go I 
11 j 

And it's the Senate's responsibility, because the 

12 

Governor obviously won't stand up to the bar and take the 
13 || 

^responsibility on himself to fire him. 

14 

SENATOR PETRI S: Now, would you clarify a couple of 
15 l| 

the legal issues that have been the subject of controversy here, 



16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



jof dispute? 

MR. HOWARD: Certainly, Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Will you give us your name? 
ii 

My name is Edward Howard. I am an attorney with the 

i 

ijlaw firm of Hall and Phillips. I represent Voter Revolt in the 

J 
Proposition 103 rebate proceedings. I was counsel for Voter 

I 

Revolt, for example, in the Twentieth Century decision and the 

ij 

entire hearing attendant to that case. 

Earlier, Commissioner Garamendi referred to the 

Office of Administrative Law's actions as inappropriate. They 

I 
are worse than that. They are unlawful. 

Government Code 11340.1 specifically states that the 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



67 
OAL cannot substitute its judgment as expressed in the 
substantive content of the regulations for the judgment of its 
own self. 

Basically what that means is that if there is a 
judgment call involved in the substance of the regulations, tie 
goes to the Commissioner, the regulatory body. That is the law. 

And yet, three very simple facts demonstrate how the 
Office of Administrative Law, under Marz Garcia, has substituted 
unlawfully its own judgment about the substantive content of 
jlthese rebate regulations for the judgment of itself. 

First, OAL has repeatedly stated that its major 
'problem with the Commissioner's rebate regulations is that they 
do not give the insurer a right to prove that a rate is 
unconstitutional . 

I was involved in the Twentieth Century case. That 
llcase was — that issue was squarely presented before the 
administrative law judge. The briefs in that case addressing 
/those issues are, by the Commissioner and the Twentieth Century 
i lnsurance , are over a hundred pages long. In her 200-page 
decision, she squarely addressed that issue and disagreed with 
the OAL and the insurers on every count. 

Thus, we have the fact that the OAL — we have 

I! 

evidence by this fact that the OAL has unlawfully substituted 

ij 
its own judgment for that of the Commissioner's because the 

'OAL's decision is at odds with that of a qualified 
ij 
administrative law judge. 

Second fact. The OAL states over and over in its 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 



17 



68 
rejections of the Commissioner's rebate regulations the case of 
Cal Farm v. Deukmeiian — that was the California Supreme Court 
case that upheld Proposition 103, and specifically the rebate 

section of Proposition 103 — clearly, according to the OAL, 

i 

clearly demands that the regulations be disapproved of. 

Again, this was a central question in Governor 

i 

Wilson's last decision to overrule the Office of Administrative 

Law last time. And although, as the Office of — as Mr. Garcia 

stated, he agreed with much of the analysis in the Office of 

(Administrative Law's decision, he said this: 

"After Cal Farm , there is 
j 

considerable doubt ..." 

the Governor wrote, 

I 

"about whether or not the rebate 
i 
i 

part of Proposition 103, about what 

it can constitutionally accomplish 
and how. But a close reading ..." 



18 j 

according to the Governor, 
19 

"of the Cal Farm case seems to tip 
20 | 

the balance to the Office of 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Administrative 
Law . " 

;; 

It flies in the face of the Office of Administrative 
^Law's statement that the Cal Farm case clearly supports its 
position. It does not. 

And remember, the law states that if there is a 
! judgment call, tie goes to the Commissioner. 









69 

■ 

l 

Thus, we have a second fact, indicating that the OAL 

2 

has unlawfully substituted its own judgment for the 
3 

Commissioner's. That fact comes by virtue of the fact that it 

4 

is — that the OAL is contradicted by Governor Wilson himself on 

5 

what the Cal Farm case says. 
6 

Finally, as alluded to by Commissioner Garamendi, the 

7 

Office of Administrative Law has consistently stated that the 

8 

statements of emergency supporting issuance of emergency 

9 

regulations by the Commissioner are invalid. 

10 

Again, this was the central question, a central 



11 i 

i 



12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



question, heard in the case in Los Angles before Judge Janavs 

about which Commissioner Garamendi has alluded to. Superior 

I 

Court Judge Janavs specifically held — knowing that she is 

supposed to defer to the expertise of the Commissioner under the 

law, unlike Mr. Garcia, who seems to not understand that the 

Government Code applies to him — she specifically stated that 

(the Commissioner had put forth a credible statement of 

jj 

emergency . 

ii 

Again, a third fact indicating that the Office of 

Administrative Law is substituting its own judgment unlawfully 

i 1 

pfor that of the Commissioner. 

Judge Janavs, Governor Wilson, administrative law 
judge Elizabeth Port and Commissioner John Garamendi all 
disagree with the analysis of the Office of Administrative Law 
in now three times rejecting these regulations. 

This clearly demonstrates that the Office of 
Administrative Law is substituting its own legal judgment for 



70 
1 

that of the Commissioner's, the Governor's, Judge Janavs ' , and 

2 

the administrative law judge Port's decisions. His decisions 
3 

are, therefore, unlawful. 

4 

I would like to bring up an additional point which is 

5 || 

very disturbing to me . 

6 

When the — when the Office of Administrative Law, 

7 

the last go-around, disapproved of the regulations, Commissioner 

8 

Garamendi appealed, and the Office of Administrative Law replied 
9 

jjto that appeal. And it said over and over in that decision that 
10 

there was no mechanism, none, for an insurer to prove in these 
ll 

hearings that a rate as applied to it is unconstitutionally 
12 

iconf iscatory . That is false. 



13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I will read to you from Section 2646.4(e) of the 
regulations, quote: 

"The administrative law judge shall 

II 

• • • 

no discretion, 

!| "shall admit evidence he or she 

il 

i 

i 

finds relevant to the determination 

of the minimum nonconfiscatory rate, 

whether or not such evidence is 

specifically contemplated by the 

ii 

regulations . " 

This regulation appears nowhere. It is intentionally 
omitted from Mr. Garcia 's reply. 

In short, it is crystal clear that we have an Office 
of Administrative Law under Marz Garcia who has decided, for 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



71 
whatever reason, to second-guess the policy judgments of the 
Commissioner. That is unlawful. 

I'm anxious to answer any questions you may have. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

Any questions? 

i 

So you want to comment? Is this your counsel? 

MR. GARCIA: Yes, and he handled the case. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Why do I have a hunch he's going to 

disagree? 

[Laughter. ] 

! 

SENATOR PETRIS: Okay, go ahead, sir. 
MR. McNAMER: Senator Petris and Committee Members, 
my name is Michael McNamer. I'm a Senior Staff Counsel at the 

Office of Administrative Law. 

ji 

I have been with the Office for ten years. I am not 

a political appointee. 

It has been my job over those past ten years to 

i 

review rule makings submitted by all of the various state 
agencies to implement the laws passed by this body. And I am 
very conscientious about the job of the Office and the role of 
the Office in not substituting its judgment for that of the 
Commissioner . 

I was interested to hear Counsel mention my phrase, 
that I have used in these decisions, that the tie goes to the 
,i runner. 

I have made every effort in advising Director Garcia 
that — to very clearly keep in mind the directive from the 



72 

1 

Legislature to not substitute the judgment of the Office of 
2 

Administrative Law for that of the rule making agency. After 
3 

all, it is the rule making agency that has been given the 

4 

discretion to implement, interpret, or make specific the 

5 

statutes that they are administering or enforcing. 



So, I have, in my own mind, a clear picture which has 
been developed over ten years of experience on the issue of 
substitution of judgment. 



h 



records that are submitted to us, and we are not, you know, at 

play in the fields of politics, as it were. We don't experience 

the dynamics of the political pushing and shoving in the attempt 

to develop policies. 

So, we are limited to the rule making record. We 

look at the materials that are submitted to us, and we make — 

we call them as we see them based upon the record, and the 

i 

statutes that we have to work with, and the — and the 

indications from the courts as to what the statues mean. 

I can give you my personal assurance that that was 

the kind of advice that was given to Director Garcia in — 

interestingly enough, I handled both of the cases that 

Commissioner Garamendi's concerned about, both the surplus lines 

case, and the Proposition 103 cases that are before you here. 

And I can assure you that the advice given was based on a solid 

reading of the law, and — and it's kind of odd to see the spin 



73 
1 3 



5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



that begins to appear on a decision from the Office of 
Administrative Law once its been issued. 



And I would suggest to the Committee that it should 

4 



cut away, kind of, all the falderal if it is concerned about the 
jjvalue of the decisions and actually look at our decisions that 

we have issued in these matters . All those decisions are 

I 

published, and we write them, explaining in a significant 

i 

detail the basis upon which we — the decision was reached. And 

I think that in these cases, we have articulated those reasons. 
ji 

ijwe have articulated responsibly what the Cal Farm decision would 
|| 

require . 

I think that the Governor, when he looked at our 
analysis, very clearly said, without question, no matter what 
ithe people who want to put a spin on it say, that if he were in 
the same position as the Director of the Office of 
^Administrative Law, his decision would have been the same. 

Now — 



SENATOR PETRIS: Is that on the emergency regulation 



lissue? 



MR. McNAMER: That was — yes, Senator Petris. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Why did he overrule it? 

MR. McNAMER: He said that he overruled us — he said 

ii 

that he thought that his powers were somewhat different than the 
Office of Administrative Law. He was not limited to an 
application of the standards that we apply: authority, 

preference, consistency, clarity, nonduplication. He could — he 

H 

icould bring in the political dimension that the Office could 



74 
not. And exercising that dimension in this case, he said that I 
don't think, in essence, that this decision is going to be 
resolved at the administrative level, and I don't think that 
there's anything that I can do to resolve this issue. That 
there are serious legal issues here that have to be addressed 
finally and certainly by a court in a fashion that will allow 



i 

this thing to move forward. 
8 

The Governor based his decision on attempting to move 

9 

the Proposition 103 forward by getting a quick resolution of 

10 

these issues in court, and — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that in writing? 



12 



13 

14 
15 

17 
18 
19 



in 
20 



21 
22 
23 



MR. McNAMER: Yes, it is . I, as a matter of fact, 
can provide the the Committee with a copy of his decision, which 
clearly says that, yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: To be more specific, as I understand 

jit, the issue on the first go-around was whether or not 

il 

'emergency existed under the statute for an immediate expediting 

of that provision. 

MR. McNAMER: It's not — 

SENATOR PETRIS: This is as I understand it — 

MR. McNAMER: Can I sketch the procedural history 

very quickly? 



SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 



24 

MR. McNAMER: What happened was, the regulations of 

25 j 

the Commissioner were originally noticed in January of 1991. 

26 

In August of 1991, the Commissioner came in with an 

27 

emergency filing that was approved by the Office of 

28 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



75 
Administrative Law. There were concerns about it, but it was 
approved by the Office of Administrative Law on an emergency 
basis. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Who was the Director? 

MR. McNAMER: I think that that was actually in the 

ii 

time when there was an interim director serving, if memory 

serves me. I could verify that for you, but I believe that that 

— that it was done on an interim basis by an interim director. 

Then Director Garcia came in. Shortly after that, 

ii 

the Commissioner filed a companion set of emergency regulations 

(that involved generic determinations that he had made in a 

consolidated adjudication proceeding, and the Office, under 

i, 

Director Garcia' s decision making power, decided that there was 
no emergency demonstrated. 

That was the first — I believe the first decision in 
which Director Garcia decided that there was no emergency 
^demonstrated. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was that your decision as Counsel? 

MR. McNAMER: That was not my decision, but I — 
ii 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was that your recommendation? 

MR. McNAMER: That was not my — I was not the 
(reviewing attorney that handled that matter, but — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Who was? Is he here? 

MR. McNAMER: No, it's a she. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is she here? 

MR. McNAMER: And she is not present in the room. 
! SENATOR PETRIS: Okay. 



76 
I , 

MR. McNAMER: But I will tell you this, that — that 
2 

that close scrutiny of emergency regulations that Director 
3 

Garcia gave to that package was given to every other filing of 

4 

emergency regulations by every other state agency, because the 

5 

practice had developed to pretty much, kind of, move things — 

6 

quite a few things on an emergency basis. And when Director 

7 

Garcia came in, he said, "We really have to look at these in a 
8 

serious fashion, because I think lots of things have been moving 
9 

in and getting filed on an emergency basis that are, in fact, 
10 j 

ijnot emergencies." 
n 

And in essence what that does is, that eliminates the 

12 ii 

opportunity for public comment, generically, on those 

13 

'regulations before they go into effect, or limits it severely. 

14 

SENATOR PETRIS: On that issue, the Superior Court 

15 

said that there was credible evidence supporting the emergency. 

16 

MR. McNAMER: On that particular issue, yes. 

17 

SENATOR PETRIS: I gather — 
18 

MR. McNAMER: I believe that it was on that issue. 

19 

The Governor overruled that decision by Director Garcia. That 



20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



was — that was in September, I believe, September, early 

i 

'October. 

The next — the next development was that in 
j December, the Commissioner filed a Certificate of Compliance, 
which is a technical way of saying, "We have completed the rule 
making process. We've taken testimony. We've summarized and 
responded to comments. We've completed the rule making process 
on these regulations. Here, OAL, review the rule making file 



1 



77 
and see if we followed the appropriate procedures. Review the 



2 jl 

regulations for compliance with the six standards that the 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Legislature had in place." 

We then reviewed and, at the same time, I believe, he 
asked for — requested re-adoption of the emergency regulations 
just to keep them in place in case OAL should decide that the 
regulations somehow were defective. 

ji SENATOR PETRIS: Where is emergency defined? Is it 

in each separate statute, or is it in your set of — 

MR. McNAMER: It is in the Administrative Procedure 
Act. It required that — the emergency standard says that a 
agency has to make a finding that the regulations are 
immediately necessary for the protection of the public peace, 
health, safety, and welfare, and demonstrate by specific facts 
that that emergency situation exists. 

So, each filing of an emergency is required to be 

I 

l| 
accompanied by that finding and that demonstration, and OAL is 

directed to review those findings, and to disapprove those 

regulations on an emergency basis, if there's no showing. 

SENATOR PETRIS: A few months ago, we had a big 
dispute on Forestry emergency regulations . 

Where those subjected to the same kind of emergency 
scrutiny or not? 

MR. McNAMER: That's correct, yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: They were? 

MR. McNAMER: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How long did those take? How long 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



78 
did that scrutiny take? 

MR. McNAMER: Well, the statutory period for review 
of — of regulations is ten days . That ' s ten calendar days . 

SENATOR PETRIS: So you're limited to that? 

MR. McNAMER: We're limited to ten calendar days. 

On that initial review by the Office, it's a very 
quick thing. I mean, those files come in. It probably takes a 
day or so to get them logged in and get the organized, get them 
assigned for review. And then, of course, the attorneys who are 
reviewing it are — are balancing a workload to cover the — you 
know, to staff that activity. 

So, the way it's set up, the Legislature has put a 
provision in the Administrative Procedure Act that says if — 
that permits public comment on emergencies, but if public — 
directly to OAL. And this is the only time that's allowed on an 
emergency. But the Legislature said, if the public does comment 
to OAL, the agency has to be given an opportunity to respond. 

So, OAL has adopted a regulation, which provides that 
— that says that OAL will only consider comments if they are 
received in writing and within the first five days of that 
ten-day period, and if the commentor indicates that they have 
provided those comments, a copy of those comments, to the 
contact person at the adopting agency, because we wanted to make 
darn sure that somebody at the adopting agency got a copy of 
those comments so that they could give their input to the 
Office, and it could be considered before OAL made a decision on 
emergency regulations . 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



79 

So, that's — that's the procedure that's in place 
for adoption of emergency regulations . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I think we need a break for the 
reporter. We've been going at it quite awhile. Can we take 
five? A five-minute break. 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Senate will reconvene. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman, we're on the point of 
rebuttal, or answer, rather, to some legal issues that we have 
here, and this gentleman is the one in charge of overseeing — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We're going to reconvene. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That was a warning to reconvene. 
The Senate Rules Committee will reconvene. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

I just wanted to bring you up to date as to where we 
are. 

I had indicated that when we come back, we'll ask him 
to wrap up, and then give the time for rebuttal, and then go on 
from there. 

Thank you. 

MR. McNAMER: Thank you, Chairman Roberti, Senators. 

Michael McNamer from the Office of Administrative 
Law. I don't know if — I am the attorney who has represented 
the — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Could you just wait moment? I 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



80 
have to make an announcement on Mr. Strock's appointment. 

We will have the bulk on the Strock appointment next 
week, simply because the other appointments have lasted so much 
longer. 

If there is anyone here who is an out of city 
witness who cannot come back, then let us know and we'll take 
your testimony today. But if you can come back, you would be 
much more effective if you're here when the bulk of the 
testimony and questioning is going to be taking place, I would 
say. And I would also suggest that if you can make it, to 
please come back. 

But if you can't, then we will take your testimony 
regarding Mr. Strock's appointment this afternoon. Please let 
the Sergeant know if you wish to testify today if you are an out 
of Sacramento witness. 

Now, Office of Administrative Law. 

MR. McNAMER: Thank you, sir. 

I am the attorney who reviewed these filings from the 
Commissioner and advised Director Garcia. I am the person who 
ihas written the decisions of the Office on these matters, and I 
was responding to the allegation that in these — with regard to 
these regulations that the Director of the Office has 
substituted his judgment for that of Commissioner Garamendi on 
the wisdom of the regulations. 

And just to summarize, my point is that that is — 
that is not correct. The Office made a determination applying 
the standards in the Administrative Procedure Act and determined 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



81 
that in three areas, the regulations submitted by the 
Commissioner did not satisfy those requirements. 

The first being, they were not consistent with what 
Cal Farm , what the Supreme Court had articulated in Cal Farm as 
required. 

Second, there were some clarity problems with the 
regulations . 

And third, that necessity had not been demonstrated 
for the fees that the regulations required the insurance 
companies to pay to fund this whole activity. 

With regard just very briefly to the first issue, I 
think that the point that I would just like to make is that the 
Commissioner's regulations essentially establish a mathematical 
model that gets applied to each and every insurer, and that's 
what the regulations develop. The statute itself says that a — 
that — sets the primary standard as — as excessive and 
inadequate. And Commissioner is not to approve rates that are 
excessive or inadequate. 

In developing these regulations, the Commissioner 
has put together a package that relies on that mathematical 
model, that looks at — at this financial, fiscal element of the 
insurance company's business, and then plugs in numbers that he 
has based — that he has determined through generic hearings, 
and it comes out with a maximum permitted earned premium, and a 
minimum permitted earned premium. 

To augment this mathematical model, the Commissioner 
decided, apparently, that that was not satisfactory. The 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



82 
regulations allow eight variances in specific areas for 
insurance companies in an attempt to demonstrate that in — if a 
company fit into one of those eight areas, that the model did 
not result in a fair rate of return. 

The Commissioner's regulations also limit — make 
that an exclusive list. In other words, there is no opportunity 
for any company to come in and show that their particular 
circumstances fit into one of those, that there is yet another 
variance that ought to be given based upon their specific 
circumstances . 

And that is the heart of the problem that the Office 
of Administrative Law had with consistency, because the 
regulations expressly state that — limit the evidence that an 
insurer can bring in at the hearing as to essentially 
determining whether or to the model and the eight variances have 
been correctly applied. That's one problem. 

Secondly, the Commissioner — the regulations 
specifically prevent the Commissioner from approving a rate that 
does not — is not arrived at through the application of the 
mathematical model and the eight variances. 

I might note that the eight variances only apply in 
the case of application for rate changes. Only three of the 
eight variances are allowed in the rollback calculation. So, in 
the rollback calculation, the mathematical model is used in only 
three of the eight variances, and the Commissioner's own 
regulations prohibit him from approving a rate that is not 
arrived at through this model and those variances . 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

I 

22 j 

23 jj 
24 

25 '; 
26 

27 
28 



83 

And OAL found that that scheme, that model variance 
limited hearing scheme, did not allow an insurance company — 
did not provide an opportunity for an insurance company to 
demonstrate that the rate, as determined through the application 
of that model and that limited number of variances, was 
confiscatory as applied to it. 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI : Mr. Chairman, that is 
policy. That is precisely the definition of policy. It is 
precisely the substitution of policy judgment; it is precisely 
what is not allowed by the Administrative Procedure Code. 

That is the heart and soul of these regulations . 
That is the methodology of determining. 

What in the world are these characters doing if not 
substituting their judgment for mine? And the law says they 
can't do it. 

MR. McNAMER: If I may respond, the Supreme Court in 
Cal Farm taught us, and teaches us, and instructs us, that in a 
rate price control scheme, that in order for it to survive a due 
process challenge, there has to be adequate opportunity for 
individualized relief from confiscatory rates. And that is the 
principle of law that is at the heart of this dispute. 

The Office has determined that the regulations as 
structured do not allow individualized relief from the rates as 
set by this mathematical model and limited number of variances. 
And that ' s the legal — 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: Mr. Chairman — 

MR. McNAMER: ~ issue that — 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



84 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI : Mr. Chairman — 

MR. McNAMER: — that separates us. 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: Mr. Chairman, the legal 
issue is that they're substituting their judgment for mine about 
how to go about determining what the values are, and how the 
mathematical formula is to be run. 

They have no power to do that. 

Furthermore, if you'd like to get into the details — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I'm sorry, I wasn't here. 

Give me the actual charge of the Office of 
Administrative Law. Do we have that? 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: To run amok over Proposition 
103, according to them. 

MR. McNAMER: Here's another perspective — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What is your actual charge? 

MR. McNAMER: The Office of Administrative Law is to 
review regulations submitted by the state agencies that have to 
— that — let me back up one step. 

The Administrative Procedure Act covers the exercise 
of quasi-legislative powers that are delegated to state agencies 
by the Legis — by statute, in essence. And it says, when an 
agency exercises one of those powers, that it has to do so in 
accordance the minimum procedural requirements set out by the 
Legislature, and those regulations have to satisfy six statutory 
standards: authority, reference, consistency, clarify, 
nonduplication. 

The authority, reference, and consistency standards 



85 
1 

are those kinds of — are the review standards that the courts 

2 : 

have traditionally applied in determining whether or not 
3 

administrative regulations adopted through this process are 

4 

valid. 

In applying those standards, the APA instructs the 

6 

Office of Administrative Law not to substitute its judgment for 

7 

that of the substantive content of the regulations, and in the 
8 

;same breath, instructs the courts not to do that either. So, it 

9 

puts us on the same — on the same instruction with regard to 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



^substitution of judgment, exercising wisdom. 

There is no wisdom standard. The Office does not 

jlook at whether or not the policies that are articulated in the 

j 

regulations are the best way to go, or there's merit in them, or 
anything of that sort. It applies legal standards to determine 
whether or not the will of the Legislature, or the will of the 
people in an initiative statute, has been carried out by the 
(administrative agency. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Well — 

SENATOR PETRIS: There's one more element. 

j 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, you were talking about 
consistency. 

MR. McNAMER: Yes, sir. 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Clarity. 

MR. McNAMER: Authority, reference, consistency, 
jdarity, nonduplication, and necessity. 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI : None of which we've been 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



86 
challenged on. 

SENATOR PETRI S: Now, I asked — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Have you specifically dealt with 
any of those issues? 

MR. McNAMER: Yes, the consistency issue is — is one 
iproblem with these. We — these regulations were disapproved 
because they did not satisfy the consistency standard, the 
jclarity standard, and the necessity standard. 

The necessity standard applied to the fee schedule 

i 

that is in the regulations, because the rational basis for the 

amount of the fees set was not demonstrated in the records 

submitted to OAL. That is the charge to OAL with regard to 

necessity. OAL found that there was no necessity demonstrated 

iin the record by substantial evidence, which is the standard in 

ijthe Act, for those regulations. 
i 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I would tend to think that the 
[i 
,charge of the Office of Administrative Law is to make sure that 

regulations themselves do not become statutory. 

i| 

And if my recollection serves me right, that is why 

ii 
i 

the Office was set up in the first place. And that is, the 
regulations themselves should not embark upon statutory 
adventure. 

I don't quite understand how the succession of 
denials to the Insurance Commissioner is consistent with that. 

Frankly, what I'm fearful of is that the denial is 
embarking upon new statute, and the Commissioner himself is 
enforcing the statute, which was Proposition 103. What I'm 



87 

1 

fearful is that the Office of Administrative Law is doing the 

2 

exact opposite of what their charge is. And their charge is to 
3 

make sure that regulations don't embark upon the statutory 

4 

grounds . 

5 

MR. McNAMER: The Senator's correct in the 
6 

application of the — when you're talking about that concern, to 

7 

me, that raises the authority standard. 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

20 

1 1 

21 
22 

23 

I 1 
24 

li 
25 

26 j 

27 

28 



And under the authority standard, the Office ensures 
that the agency does not alter, amend, enlarge, or restrict its 
statutory charge . That * s as the courts have interpreted that 
device. And that — and that administrative regulations are 
reasonably designed to give effect to a statutory purpose, so 
that there is no opportunity for adventure by the — by the 
state agencies in the area of authority. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I appreciate you and the Director 
of the Office of Administrative Law wanting to pursue your 
duties as you see them. 

But frankly, this imbroglio with the Insurance 
Commissioner is making me very concerned about the whole charge 
of the Office of Administrative Law. I'm fearful that it is a 
separate policy agency. 

I'm not saying that out of any malevolence or ill 
will, but I'm afraid we're creating a separate policy agency, 
over and apart from the people who are, in the case of the 
Insurance Commissioner, an elected official, who is designated 
by the people of the State of California to carry out public 
policy. And now we have this bureaucracy, that is setting out 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 



88 
public policy, doing just the opposite of what its charge was. 
And we have now two public policy entities. 

Frankly, with all due respect to the people who do 
conscientious work in the Office of Administrative Law, I tend 
to think that it's duplicative of the authority that you're 

trying to supervise. And I, myself, don't see any reason why we 

i 

have an Office of Administrative Law. 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI : Mr. Chairman, if I might 

just — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Frankly, it's — 

MR. GARCIA: May I respond? 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI J Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Hold on a second, please. 

To set the stage, my first question to Mr. Garcia 
i|Was: what's your mission? And he said the mission of the 
agency is primarily to protect the public by seeing to it that 
the regulations carry out the intent of the statute. 

Now, Mr. Garamendi ' s position has been consistently, 
they don't do that. They don't enforce the statute, and they're 
[[throwing in roadblocks at every opportunity instead of carrying 

'out the intent. That's what the whole issue is. 

I 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: If I might, Senators, you 
are precisely getting to the point here. 

Mr. Chairman, it was just stated by the good Counsel 
to the Director that we had no authority on the fees. In fact, 
Insurance Code Section 12979, insurance company filing fees: 



89 
l 

"Notwithstanding the provisions of 

2 

Section 12978, the commissioner 

3 

shall establish a schedule of filing 

4 

fees to be paid by insurers to cover 

5 

any administrative or operational 
6 J 

costs arising from the provisions of 
7 

Article 10 
8 

commencing, so on and so forth. 

9 

That ' s precisely what the fees does . 
10 

The point here is that they are reaching for reasons 



ll 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



to torpedo and derail our efforts to implement Proposition 103. 

To reach out and say we have no fee authority is 
gutter garbage. It is a total misreading, and an obfuscation, 
and a god damn lie! It's in the law. It is there. 

Now, they may not like the fee schedule that we set, 
but that's not their place in life. 

Now, with regard to this business about whether I 
have eight or nine, or however many variances I want, and 
categories of variances I want, may I read to you Cal Farm 
Insurance Company v. Deukmelian . the definitive ruling on this 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



law: 



"No provision bars the 
Commissioner from consolidating 
cases or issuing regulations of 
general applicability. Thus, there 
is nothing here which prevents the 
Commissioner from taking whatever 



90 
l 

steps are necessary to reduce the 

2 

job to a manageable size." 
3 

"It is to be presumed that the 

administrative agency will exercise 

5 

its power in conformity with 
6 

requirements of the Constitution, 

7 

and if it does act unfairly, the 

8 

fault lies with the agency, not with 
9 

the statute. " 
10 s 

The point here is this. We, this person, has the 
ll 

power to write the regulations to carry it out. 
12 

They have no power to substitute their judgment, 
13 

saying that I have restricted too narrowly, or too broadly, the 

14 

power to have variations . 

15 || 

We have given eight variations, sufficient to cover 

16 

the whole known universe. 

17 

i| If they want nine, or they want six, or they want 

18 

three, that is not their place. 

19 

This is a blatant attempt by Mr. Garcia to derail our 

20 

[effort to implement Proposition 103. He's done it three times. 

21 

Everytime, he comes up with a different reason, and everytime he 
22 

reaches for something else. 
23 

It is time to put a stop to this baloney I It is time 

24 

ito enact Proposition 103, to get on with it, and to deliver the 
25 |! 

j; rebates. 

26 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Garcia, do you want to address 

27 

the point? 

28 






1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



91 

MR. GARCIA: I'd like to address your point, 
Mr. Chairman. Maybe in the process I can address the question 
about the fees. 

Historically, one of the complaints about the Office 
of Administrative Law has always been that it's substituting its 
judgment. 

But what we do, really, is, we follow the statute, 
which is the Administrative Procedure Act, the APA for short, 
and the six standards. 

And any time we disapprove a regulation, we have to 
explain ourselves in a legal brief that illustrates the six 
standards , or whatever — whatever the ground for disapproval 
are. So, that's the protection. 

Now, Counsel, Michael McNamer, stated that the 
Commissioner was not authorized to issue fees. 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI : What did he say? 

MR. GARCIA: I'm going to explain that. 

What Counsel said was that it failed on one of the 
standards, because one of the standards is, if you do put in a 
fee structure like that, explain the necessity for it and go 
through and substantiate it by evidence. And that's one of the 
standards that we are stuck with. 

In response to Senator Mello earlier, I said that the 
agency — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is that standard enumerated in the 
statutes? 

MR. GARCIA: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



92 

And in response to Senator Mello earlier, I said 
we're trapped by the law. We have to follow the law. 

The Governor does not have to. The Governor can 
overrule us for his own reasons and just explain it to the 
Legislature. 

So, anything we do under the APA, if we disapprove a 
regulation, or send it back, we have to explain it in accord 
with the statute. 

In response to what Senator Petris asked me 
initially, what the dual purpose is, I think that the primarily 
purposes are to protect the public's right to comment, and make 
sure that there's a record there, and also to protect the intent 
of the Legislature and the statutes. 

Because, if you — one of the best things we ever did 
around here, I think, was create the Office of Administrative 
Law, and I'm not for creating government, but I think people 
understand that, because, and the reason I state that is, the 
agencies in their zeal overstep their boundaries, and there is 
really nothing, there is no appeal for the public unless they 
take it directly into court. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Well, I'm fearful. I appreciate 
your point, but I'm fearful that you come perilously close to 
being a policy maker, and you have to be very careful not to do 
that, because your charge is to make sure that regulations do 
not, in themselves, overstep themselves and become statutes. 
That ' s your charge . 

Denial of regulation in itself can set policy. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 

i 

24 
25 
26 

27 



93 

And I this was the third one. The third one starts 
raising in my mind a question I've had about the Office of 
Administrative Law, period, frankly, predating you, and that is 
that it just is too much, too prone for mischief, even well- 
intentioned mischief, that it becomes the policy maker. 

And in the insurance field, we have an Insurance 
Commissioner, who you may agree with or you don't agree with, 
but he was elected to do his job, and that's what he was elected 
to do. 

And the Office of Administrative Law was intended to 
keep the bureaucracy from thwarting the will of the people, not 
itself become a bureaucracy, doing just the opposite of what it 
was intended to do. 

I personally am sorry I wasn't here. I had to see my 
foot doctor. I'm sorry I wasn't here to hear all the testimony. 

But frankly, from what I have heard, it hasn't 
overcome my presumption that, in effect, the OAL is becoming a 
policy maker in this area. 

That doesn't go to your qualifications to be a 
Director. I think it goes to the whole institution itself, 
which concerns me very, very much. 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI : Mr. Chairman — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Commissioner Garamendi. 

COMMISSIONER GARAMENDI: If I might respectfully 
disagree with you. 

It is in fact the Director of the Office of 
Administrative Law that is setting the policy to overturn the 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



94 
policies of other agencies. It could just as easily go the 
other direction, and carry out the more narrow and appropriate 
function, but instead, this gentleman has consistently 
substituted his judgment, not only with regard to 103, but also 
with regard to our effort to stem the blatant rip-off of 
millions of Calif ornians by unlicensed insurance companies. 

In two sets of regulations that we have put before 
him, he has thought it inappropriate for us to protect the 
public from unlicensed insurance companies, a matter we 
discussed in some detail while you were absent. 

So, it's no only with regard to 103. It goes beyond 
that. It goes to protecting the public from fraud by unlicensed 
insurance companies whose paper isn't — they don't even bother 
to put a ribbon and a seal on the papers they pass out. You 
talk about fly-by-night organizations, they just collect the 
policies and — the premiums and run. 

We tried to stop that. He says I have no right to 
regulate the unlicensed insurance companies. I mean, what the 
hell are we in business for, if not to regulate the insurance 
industry, licensed or otherwise? 

In 1937, the law was put in place, modified in two 
very significant ways, Proposition 103 and assigned risk, CARP, 
both of which specified that there is a market for auto 
insurance. He says I have — that there's — that I have no 
reason because it's 1937 law. 

It's absurd! It is a substitution of his judgment! 
It has nothing to do with the formal and narrow role of his 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 



95 
department . 

Incidentally, it's precisely what the insurance 
industry wants done. They don't want regulation. They don't 

jwant 103. They don't want an insurance company — Insurance 

I 

Commissioner saying, "Get licensed or get out." They want to go 



iplay their games as they have so many years . 

I 

It's precisely what they want, and there's the 

handmaiden . 

I 
j 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other testimony? 
i 
i ! 

Then what we will do is, we will put this over for 



one week. 



Chair. 



MS. MICHEL: We have more time with Mr. Garcia. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll put it over on call of the 

MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a very fair 



16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



hearing. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Garcia. 

We are going to take up the confirmation of James 
Strock, Secretary of the California Environmental Protection 
llAgency . 

The hour is late. We're going to allow Mr. Strock an 

I 

iiopening statement, and then all those who want to testify will 
be given two minutes , no more than two minutes . 

People who come back next week, if they can, we'll 

p 

'.try to give them a little bit more time, but this isn't the main 

I 

1 hearing on Mr. Strock. It's just to accommodate people who are 
going to be out of the city, unable to return. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



96 
So, please tell us why you feel you're qualified to 

lassume this position. 

|| 

MR. STROCK: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

I 

distinguished Members of the Committee. 

I ' m honored to be here today as the Governor ' s 

|l 

jinominee to be Secretary of the Cal. EPA. 

,; 

If I might briefly go through my prior experiences 
ijfor your consideration, I've spent my working life focused on 

environmental improvement and management. I served as a special 

ij 
assistant to EPA's — the U.S. EPA's first administrator, 

i 
I 

iWilliam Ruckelshaus, during his second tour of duty, where I 

| learned a great deal about how an environmental agency should 

I 

|work, and how it could be made better. 

I also had the privilege of serving as counsel to the 
jiu.S. Senate Environment Committee and assisted them in rewriting 
jjthe nation's environmental laws in the mid-1980s, and also 
learned a tremendous respect for the legislative process. 

I've also served as a private attorney, learning 
| first-hand the tremendous difficulties that can occur in trying 
ito apply environmental law and regulations to real life 
"situations . 

I've also served as the General Counsel and Acting 
Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the civil 
service, and in that capacity as well as working very strongly 
in a commitment to federal workers, I became very attuned to the 
needs of the very dedicated career civil servants. 

Finally, in my work as the Assistant Administrator of 



97 
1 I 

the U.S. EPA in charge of enforcement, I worked very hard to 

2 

reorganize the national environmental enforcement functions, and 

3 

iwe worked to create a very credible deterrent against serious 

4 

[environmental assault through record levels of civil and 

5 

(criminal enforcement, including against the federal government 
itself. 



6 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 



The most significant experience I've had the good 
fortune to have has been serving over the past year, working to 
help the Governor and the Legislature create a Cal EPA that is 
worthy of the strong leadership role that you all established 
over a long number of years. Our work has included, to be 



12 ;l 

'brief, ranging from the toxics spill at Dunsmuir that occurred 

i 



13 
14 
15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

jnecessary as well. 
22 

In closing, I would like to stress that if I receive 
23 [ 

lyour endorsement, I will give every bit of my energy to have an 

24 

agency that you will have confidence and will be proud of, and I 

25 

liwould stress, too, that I am making a point, as is my office, of 

26 

jj going far beyond traditional activities and getting out to areas 

27 

iwhere problems are, whether it's on a beach at Santa Monica, or 

28 



the week of our creation, to work following the Los Angeles 

riots recently. 

We've been very active in a whole series of 
! ; 

[legislative issues, including with Members of this particular 
jl 
panel. We've worked hard to make our permitting process work 

[[better, both with respect to large-scale efforts and also the 

needs of small business. And we worked very hard to assert 

California's interest against the federal government where ever 



98 
1 

on a farm in Fresno, or a public hearing with respect to a 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



cement kiln. We're making every possible effort to set a high 
standard. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTIs Thank you very much. 

If have three people here on my list to testify in 
support. I'll call them up. Mr. Greg Schulte, United States 
Customs , Oceans ide . 

MR. SCHULTE: Yes, hello. 
ij I just have a few remarks to make. 

I'm a Special Agent with the United States Customs, 

i 

stationed in Oceanside, California. I'm the Customs Agent in 

ii 

i;San Diego that works environmental crime cases . We look at the 
illegal export of hazardous waste. 

Over the last few months, we've worked very closely 



Iwith the California Environmental Protection Agency, with their 

! : 

^Mexico Border Project, in which they've assisted us in looking 

ij 

ijat truck inspections of both in-bound and out-bound trucks for 

■I 

^hazardous waste cargo. We work very closely with the San Diego 

ii 

liCounty Hazardous Materials Management Division to identify 

'illegal shipments of hazardous waste, both in and out of the 

country, and to take some sort of corrective action there. 

Another program that Cal EPA had worked with us on 

ij 

iwas providing training for Mexican Customs Officials in 
identifying hazardous waste, and in the safety aspects of 
dealing with hazardous waste. 

On March 6th of this year, we gave a four-hour block 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



99 

of training to approximately 30 Mexican Customs Officers in 

Tijuana. That training was given in Spanish by a San Diego 

[County Hazardous Waste Officer. 

About two weeks later, on March 22nd, Mexican Customs 

^intercepted a load of 24 drums of chlorinated solvent waste at 

'the Tijuana border. The driver of the truck attempted to bribe 

Mexican Customs. They rejected his bribe, ordered him back to 

I 

the United States to report to U.S. Customs. We seized the 

truck and the cargo. We have indicted a company, a shoe 

company out of Los Angeles, and three of the officers of the 

I 

company for federal felonies on this . 

I would directly tie that case to the training which 
was provided with the assistance of Cal EPA, and a Cal EPA 
officer was present, Spanish-speaking officer was present in 
iTijuana, at the training, which we felt was a real help. 

I would like to say that our working relationship 
Jjwith Cal EPA has been first-class, and we'd like to see that 
liworking relationship continue in stopping the illegal export of 
^hazardous waste. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Schulte. 
llWe appreciate your testimony. 

The next witness is Mr. Leonard Robinson of TAMCO 

Steel. 

ii 

MR. ROBINSON: I'm unable to make it next week, but I 
l 
i did want to get my comments . 

We're a steel mill located in Rancho Cucamunga, 

i 

I California. As a matter of fact, we're the only steel mill 



100 

1 

located in California. We manufacture steel. We make rebar. 

2 J 

Well, on occasion, we started a program to recycle 

3 

used oil filters. Used oil filters historically have gone into 
4 J 

'landfills, leached oil into the groundwater. We worked to 



5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 



recycle these products to make a product out of it, and we had 

a situation with the local air quality district, who may it a 

jpermitting issue. 

With the assistance of Mr. Strock and his office, the 

issue was resolved. We got the permit in ten days, which is a 

lj 

record for this particular agency. And not only was it good for 

!the environment, but it resulted in a net reduction of toxics 

for our particular type of operation. 

I 

A small company like us appreciates the efforts of 

14 I 

Mr. Strock and his staff. And I've been an environmental 

15 

manager for 18 years. I've seen all phases of it. The biggest 
16 

waste in California is not liquid; it's not solid; it's not 

17 

[hazardous. It's a waste of time. Duplicity in permitting 

18 

lissues, a lot of run-around; every agency's agenda is more 

19 

important to others. 

20 

What we need to survive in business if environmental 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



'protection is going to be a function of economic recovery, we 

lj 

need direction, not compromise. We need commitment, not 

contemplation. We need encouragement, not just enforcement. We 

need assistance, not resistance. And we need accountability, 

I not accounting ability. 

We feel that these are inclusive of the agendas that 

II 

. 

■Mr. Strock brings to the table in regard to the environmental 



101 
1 

protection for California. 
2 

We ' re not out asking for an agency to rubber-stamp 
3 

any kind of permit or any kind of issue. We are requesting firm 
4 , 

direction and decisions based on real world scenarios, and 

5 

realistic attainment goals. 

6 

Again, TAMCO Steel is in favor of Mr. Strock's 

7 

confirmation as Secretary for the Environmental Protection 

8 

Agency . 
9 

Thank you for your time. 
10 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. You did it 
11 

in two minutes flat. 

12 

[Laughter. ] 

13 
il 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next is Mr. Thomas McHenry, 

14 

Hazardous Waste Association of California. 

15 

MR. McHENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

16 

Members of the Committee. 
17 i 

I'm pleased to be here today, and I'd be happy to 

18 

come back next week, but I'll be meeting with the South Coast 

19 

Air Quality Management District to discuss some conflicting 

20 

jregulatory requirements that one of my clients has with the 



21 

22 

,i 
ii 
i 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



Department of Toxics, Substances Control, a matter in which I've 
J actually consulted with Mr. Strock's office. So, of course, I 
won't be able to be here, but I'll try to make my remarks quite 
brief. 

I did take an opportunity to prepare them in written 
form. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, may I give you copies for 
your review. So, I'll just give you the high points, if I can. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



102 

I'm testifying here today in my capacity as an 

environmental attorney, working with large and small 

corporations in Southern California on air, water, and waste 

matters. I have generally a compliance practice. And I also 

serve as President of the Hazardous Waste Association of 

California, which is a statewide, 350-member association of 

generators, transporters, and recyclers of hazardous waste. 

I know the substance of this hearing is not to 

address whether there should be a Cal EPA, but whether or not 

Mr. Strock is the right person to run it. But I can't help but 

j 

say that it ' s immensely important to my clients and to the 

Association, the Hazardous Waste Association, that there be a 

Cal EPA and that it function. 

We, frankly, crave an individual and an agency, some 
entity, that we can go to when the air agency tells our client 
to do one thing, the waste agency tells him to do another, and 
then the water agency tells him to do a third thing. And that, 
it seems to me, is the purpose of Cal EPA, and its primary 
purpose . 

Turning to the issues of this hearing, which is 
Mr. Strock 's qualifications, I want to share with you at least 



two anecdotes of my own personal experience in dealing with 
Mr . Strock ' s agency . One is the one that Mr . Robinson 
previously referred to with TAMCO, in which Secretary Strock 's 
office was able to address some conflicting regulations which 
were caused by different agencies who couldn't agree on a very 
innovative recycling program which was going to reduce the 



103 
famount of hazardous waste going to landfills, and he stepped in 
;!and was able to broker an arrangement, satisfying all the 



4 '< 



environmental requirements, which I think led to a happy 



5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 



solution, and one that's functioning right now. 



A second matter that I ' m involved in currently is one 
in which Mr. Strock — I've consulted with Mr. Strock's office 
about, in which a client has similarly been stuck between two 
regulatory goals, and has been able to step in and make — make 
a very useful contribution. 

Mr. Strock's qualifications are one that you've 
already heard about. I think there are three that he brings to 



12 

the position that I want to outline to you, and they're 

•3 

^contained in my statements . 

14 

One, is his qualifications. He's immensely well 



15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



qualified. 

Secondly, I think he has the brains to take on this 
job, and I think this is a job which is going to call for 
someone to look into the future if California is going to be — 
continue to be a leader in environment regulation. Mr. Strock 
certainly brings those qualifications to the table. 

And finally, I think he cares. He's extremely 
committed to the environmental issues which are facing us in the 
State of California, and he's demonstrated this in his first 
year of office. 

So, if you would like to have me answer any 
questions, I'd be delighted to do so. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



104 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. McHenry, we 

ijappreciate it. 

I 

Next I have someone here who indicated concern. We 

I 

[will take him up next, Mr. Larry Landis of Valley Keeper, Yuba 

il 

City. 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: He had to leave. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: He had to leave? Okay. 
Next we will take up those here who indicated 



9 

Opposition. Mr. Will Allen, California Institute for Rural 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Studies, Camesha Growers. 

MR. ALLEN: Thanks a lot. 

We came together as a group of organizations who were 
concerned about the environment in the middle of May, and we had 
an hour meeting with Mr. Strock on the 18th of May. And we 
asked him to respond to several concerns we had about the 
environment. And the response we got back was 19 pages of Xerox 
material from out of the regulations. I didn't see very much 
innovative stuff in the responses we got, and the following 
statement characterizes Mr. Strock' s response, quote: 

"I do not accept the categorical 
statement that children and the 
public are being exposed to 
dangerous pesticides, and that the 
Agency does not do enough to protect 
the environment and public health." 
End quote. 

We had anticipated that Mr. Strock or — and the Cal 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



105 
jEPA would be an advocate for the environment and a champion for 
the environment, and we had also anticipated that SB 950, the 
|1985 Birth Defects Act, and 550 would generate the information 

I! 

to fill the data gaps of over 3,000 pesticides, and require data 

for all new pesticides introduced in California. Eight of the 

i 

:|ten tests were to be completed by December 31st, 1991, before 

the poisons were to be given an extension to finish the tests. 

In addition to farming, I work for the California 

(Institute for Rural Studies, and we at CIRS decided to monitor 

jthis re-registration and suspension process. When we began to 

inquire from Cal EPA about the status of the first 57 chemicals 

1 

ion the list, we were sent a booklet of loopholes to the law. We 

jwere also given information on which companies were the data 

generators, so that we could help them to speed up the studies 

|so that agriculture would not lose these poison tools . 

Finally, we were advised that we could impact the 
'jdeferral process on these chemicals by claiming economic 
ijhardship. 

In order to more accurately monitor this process, 
because our assumption was that a lot of the tests that were 
being saved for the last period of testing, those two tests that 
weren't done by 1991, were the tests that took the longest 
period of time. We asked for the summary evaluations of all 
these poisons, but acute and chronic. We were told by Cal EPA 
Department that it would cost us 35 cents per page. And if we 
have to copy this stuff, we at CIRS are prepared to rent a 
copier and do it ourselves. But we're under the impression that 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



106 
there is a public law that says that public records are 
available from government agencies for the local cost of 
commercial copying, which is about one-fifth of the Cal EPA 
copying cost. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Allen, you have 30 more 
seconds . 

MR. ALLEN: Okay. 

So, as advocates for farmers and farm labor, we are 
scandalized by these costs and the general inaction of our 
California Environmental Protection Agency. We need a champion 
for the environment, not an advocate for the chemical companies. 

We, as farmers, are losing tools, and yet, there are 
71,000 acres of certified organic farms right now, and over 
150,000 acres of organic farms that are claimed organic. We 
know that we can farm without these chemicals . We want Cal EPA 
to champion IPM and organic farming. 

We don't feel that's happening. We feel that they're 
^dragging their feet, and we want something done about it. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Allen. 



MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman, would I have a chance 



today or next week — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Today, I'll give you a chance to 
rebut. Otherwise, we'll forget what was said. 

MR. STROCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to go 
through — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: But why don't you want until 
everybody — 



107 

MR. STROCK: Yes, excuse me. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — speaks. 

The next witness is Camelia Yarborough of Concerned 
Citizens of Brentwood. 

MS. YARBOROUGH-NUNES : Good evening. 

I'm here because I have declined Mr. James Strode' s 
confirmation . 

On May 18th, when we met with Mr. Strock, he said 
that he's responsible for the children and the people who are 
being affected by these potential toxic chemicals. And the 
report he sent out, he contradicts his statement, saying he does 
not acknowledge any person as being affected by these chemicals. 

I can only assume that that statement includes 15 
chemicals in my area, both the county and state Health and 
Agriculture Departments, along with Dr. Strock 's office, are 
aware of pesticide illness reports of children as well as 
grownups diagnosed as exposure to farming chemicals. 

Given that Pesticide Watch of Los Angeles documents 
20-30,000 acute farmworker chemical poisonings per year, there's 
a mysterious lack of pesticide illness reports for farmworkers 
in our county. 

In 1991, the Mexican Consulate, Nicolas Escalante, 
responded to a violation of a 48-hour re-entry period for 
Lanate, which resulted in acute poisoning of a field worker. 
Mr. Strock has been made aware of the potential toxic chemicals 
drifting into the school yards and onto our farmworkers, and has 
done nothing to assure the protection of either, including the 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



108 
application that's taking place right this moment on a field 

adjacent to three schools. 

i 

Mr. Strock seems very comfortable with using the word 

"safe" in relation to these chemicals, which not logical at all. 

These chemicals in some cases have been proven to cause cancer, 

tumors, mutation, birth defects, and over time, accumulate in 

the bodies to cause unknown health defects later in life. 

Some of these chemicals have not been proven safe at 

I 

all. The 1985 Yearbook of Agriculture states that sensitivity 

at this issue is acute. In some instances, the charges against 

i 

a given pesticide are fully substantiated by responsible 
research findings . 

We, the Concerned Citizens of Brentwood, feel that 
since Mr. Strock has taken charge, nothing has changed. Our 
Ichildren are still being exposed, and we are still being given 
the run-around. We're tired of bureaucracy. We feel it is time 
for those persons in positions of responsibility to be 
^responsible. 

Please do not allow another moment to go by without 
doing something to protect our most precious resource, our 
ichildren. 

Thank you for your time. 

i 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Yarborough. 

j 

Our next witness is Mr. Tom Candrian, Pesticide 

Action Group of Marin County. 

MR. CANDRIAN: Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, I'm 
ii 
the Director of the Pesticide Action Group, also an appointee to 



109 

the Committee on Environmental Quality for the San Rafael School 

"District, and a film maker. 

Two billion pounds of pesticides per year are put on 
ii 
the United States. Last year, almost two billion pounds of 

'pesticides were put on the United States. Forty tons an hour 

jare exported from the United States . 

One in nine women that you know in the United States 
8 

this year are going to get breast cancer. 
9 

I'm embarrassed to say that I'm an environmentalist, 
10 

after hearing some of the testimony that happened just a little 
11 j 

jtohile ago by environmental managers and environmental attorneys, 

12 

;people that are representing industries that are polluting. 

13 

My question to Mr. Strock on May 18th, when we had 



1 

2 
3 

4 

i 

5 ; 

6 

7 



14 
15 
16 

; ! 

17 

i 

18 !l 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 Ii 

25 II 

26 

I! 

27 

28 i! 



the — when a group of environmentalists had a meeting with 
Mr. Strock, was how do we enforce regulations on pesticides? 

I had an incident just recently. Across the street 
from my house is a private school . There was a gentleman 
applying pesticides by hand for money. 

I went over and with my — I'm a film maker — I went 
over with my camera and documented him applying pesticides with 
no safety gear on, with children walking through the pesticides 
as he's applying them. And he didn't speak English, either. 
So, obviously, couldn't have read the warning signs on the can 
of pesticides that he was using. 

I called the County Agricultural Commissioner. He 
said he couldn't do anything, because by the time he got 
somebody there, there — the evidence would be gone. Then I let 






1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

7 

i 

8 

i. 
I 

9 l ! 

I 

10 

11 i 

i 
12 j 

13 

14 j 
15 

i6 ! 

17 
18 i 



110 

j 

him know I was a professional film maker; I had it documented on 

i 

film — on tape, actually. And he kind of stuttered and said 

|he ' d put an investigator on it . 

i 

I called him repeatedly for a month. I've since — 
as far as I knew, by the time — after a month had gone by and 
no actions had been taken. 

In response to the twenty pages of response we got 
from our meeting with Mr. Strock, I documented the actions that 
had been taken by the County Agricultural Commissioner. And 
these actions might — the actions that the County Agricultural 
Commissioner, from blatant disregard for the regulations, the 

pesticide regulations, might be a $500 fine against some 

i 

struggling working man with a gardening business, not against 
the school, not against this private high school there, not 
against the company that's responsible for actually making these 
— irresponsibly making these pesticides available. 

So, because of the video I showed, because of the 



iphone calls, the many phone calls I called, challenging the 

19 ;! 

Agricultural Commissioner to take action, because of the letters 



20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I wrote — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You have 30 second, Mr. Candrian. 

MR. CANDRIAN: — to the County Agricultural 
Commissioner, because of the letters written to the CEPA, 
because of a personal plea to Mr. Strock, some action has been 
taken. 

If I wasn't — and this is like a minor infraction, 
okay? I mean, it's not — it's not like this is a huge 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 



111 
infraction that's been taking place. But any violation of the 

regulations, in order to have any — in order to get any action 

ii 

taken, it's almost impossible to get any action taken. We're 

i 

^spending thousands of dollars to get a $500 fine implemented, 

that's going to probably fined against the wrong person. 

•i 

So, Mr. — I oppose Mr. Strock's appointment, because 

I 

jihe didn't — he didn't come up with any sort of innovative ideas 

jiabout how we're going to take care of our environment. 

II 

One in nine women you know are going to get breast 

ibancer this year. 

il 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Candrian. 

I 

Our next witness is Jan Clayburgh of the Pesticide 



^atch of Los Angeles. 



14 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: She had to leave for Los Angeles. 
15 j| 

She'll be back next week, I hope. 
16 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next witness is Julie Cook, 
17 ji 

IjCitizens for a Healthy Ukiah. 



19 

I 
20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



MS. COOK: How are you all today? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Tired. 

MS. COOK: I'm tired, too. 

The reason I'm here today is because I'm very 
concerned about this appointment. I became involved in this 
group back in July, because we have a particularly harsh 
pollution problem in my home town. At night, we're visited by 
very strong pollution. 

This particular plant that is offensive has denied 
that anything has come out of this plant at all, except steam, 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



112 

i 

if or years and years. But recently, it was bought by 

ii 

jlnternational Paper, who has a history of very bad environmental 

abuses and lying to the government. They recently paid $2.2 

pillion in fines for purposeful dumping, taking their hazardous 

|waste and burning it as fuel in their boiler without permits, 

and so on and so on. 

Well, they seem to be doing the same thing in my 

I 

town. We smell it at night. Our whole neighborhoods are 
lover come by this stuff and sick at the same time. It's a 
terrible story. 

They have been found in violation of air pollution 
(laws. They have a serious problem with groundwater 
Ipontamination . But at the same time, the state has given our 
water quality agencies exemption for testing for any organics at 
all, even though that's what the contamination is around the 
wells. And basically, there has been zero enforcement of any of 
the laws that we already have. 

I'm afraid with this streamlining of permits that 
Mr. Strock is proposing, that it's going to make a lot more 
permits come about. It's not the good businesses I'm concerned 
about; it's the few businesses that are not. The few businesses 
that try to cut corners and make a fast buck here and there. 

We have seen a lot of illness in the employees of the 

iplant, who have complained to OSHA for years and years, and 

i 

inothing has been done. We've seen the same illnesses in the 

i 

community. We've seen serious illnesses cropping up in the last 
couple of years. 



2 ! 

II 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 



8 



9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 



15 1 



16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



113 
I'm just afraid that if Mr. Strock is able to take 
these air pollution districts, and regional water quality 
['districts, and consolidate them into larger districts, which are 
removed from the citizenry, that there will be no one to come 
jand see the evidence as it occurs. As it is, nobody can come to 
our houses anyway, because most of it happens at night. 

li 

So, I have some serious concerns. I'm not sure that 
Mr. Strock will really protect the public health, and that is 

'why I'm opposing this. 

I 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Cook. 

MS. COOK: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next witness is Lew Dunn, 

i| 

jjCalifornia Committee against Toxics. 

MR. DUNN: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the 
Iboard, I've been involved with the Department of Health Services 
for over 15 years now. I lecture nationwide now. 

I was a person that lived in a community where I 
thought we would get help from the Department of Health 
Services, which we didn't. We had set up meetings with them. 
They set up committees with us. They lied to us. They withheld 
information from us for years. At one point, Steve Lavinger, 
that is now with the Cal EPA, I understand, told us in a public 
meeting that I was on a board of, under Tanner, that sometimes 
government just has to lie to you. 

And while he was making those statements , we were 
still being poisoned in our town. There was a Department of 
Health Services enforcement officer on the site for over 15 



114 
[months . The documents showed that they were pumping cyanide and 
other organics in the air while we were sleeping without the 



equipment even being turned on to break it down. 

4 ![ 

What happened in 15 months? Nothing. Nothing has 



5 
6 

7 !! 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



changed. 

We have a new name, and when this man sits here and 
Ijtells you he worked under Ruckelshaus as an enforcement officer, 

the EPA has not enforced any fine in the United States since 

i 

jjthey've been out at a maximum fine. And I'd like him to name me 
one . 

Casmania at one time could have been fined $27 

i! 

[million. Do you know how much the fine was? $10,000. 

That sent a clear message: to keep doing what you're 
doing because it ■ s profitable to kill people in rural 
communities across this country. 

We ' re not going to accept it anymore . We want some 

istrong enforcement. We want some new laws changed that protect 

I 

ipeople in the communities . 

i 

Number one, deed of trust on all properties sold in 

j 

the State of California has to be stamped as hazardous waste 
property. Prop. 65 does not do it, because you put it in the 
['hands of the people that have economic interest not to tell 
people when they buy their property that they're buying on 
hazardous waste, as it was done in Oxnard, California. 

It's happening all over the state. Roseville, 
California, they say there's no cancer cluster in Roseville, 
'[California. There ' re just a lot of people — a lot of women in 



115 
1 

i the neighborhood that have breast cancer. Out of 14 homes, 

2 

there's 12 homes with women with breast cancer. They said, 

3 

"There's not a cancer cluster. It's just a lot of women with 
4 ,j 

'(cancer." That's an absurd statement. 

5 

In the San Joaquin Valley, when they talk about 

6 1 

(pesticides. Dr. Kizer sat in front of myself and all the 

7 

'national news media and said that they did a study on 1748 

8 

ijchildren, to be exact, in three counties. And I asked him why 
9 

Ihe did the study, and they said they wanted to find out how many 

10 

jchildren had cancer on all three counties. He said they all had 



11 

12 



13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 I 

27 

28 



^the same amount, and Dr. Goldman was there. 

I says, "Excuse me, Dr. Kizer. How many of those 
1748 children did you check to find out if they had the same 



contaminants in their system that are in the groundwater that 
are contaminating Kings, Kern, and Fresno Counties?" 

Do you know what the answer was? Zero. He said, "We 
didn't care what was causing it. We just wanted to find out how 
many." And they've shut down 1500 wells alone in Fresno County. 

And I asked the other question in front of the 
national media, "Isn't it a fact that the water table in all 
three counties is the same?" He said, "Well, yeah. Well, maybe 
we better go back and check these children." 

Nothing ' s being done to protect people in these 
communities. Nothing has changed. Ruckelshaus didn't do it, 
and he went to work for the chemical companies because he knew 
how to circumvent the laws. That's no recommendation. 

And when they say "enforcement", there's been no 



116 
1 

enforcement. It's a joke. It's an international disgrace. And 
2 „ 

when our own government says, "We refuse to sign air — or, 
3 

environmental laws that will coincide with the rest of the 

4 

world," we're the only nation in the world that hasn't done it. 

5 ; : 

That ' s incredible . 

6 

No. I don't want this man to take care and 

7 

pe responsible for the health and welfare of my family any more. 

8 

jil paid once. I watched my town die. I watched my neighbors 

iplow up in front of me, literally blow up. And all the time 
10 

Ithat they had inspection officers, and they had people on that 
11 

jjsite that were swearing up and down there was nothing wrong. 



12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 S 

23 



Ladies and gentlemen, I have the most extensive file in the 
nation on that site that showed that the Department of Health 
Services lied to us for years. 

We won't take any more lies. We're not going to do 
it any more. 

We want strong people in that are going to protect 
us. Number one priority of you gentlemen sitting on this board 
and this man here is the health and safety of the people of this 
state, not the health and safety of industry. Because industry 
is not doing it. They're not doing it anywhere. 

Ukiah, she's — Julie Cook, sitting over there, her 
^children are sick. One lady got up and pled for her child in 

24 | 

j Ukiah because he has Parkinson's disease. He was raised ten 

25 I 

iblocks from the masonite plant. Do you know what they told her? 

26 |! 

|!"Your son is nameless and faceless to me, and he doesn't count." 

27 

That's documented, gentlemen. 

28 ' : 



117 

1 ji 

Thank you. 

2 

SENATOR PETRIS: Excuse me. 

Where do you live? 
4 | 

MR. DUNN: I live in Covolo. I used to live in 

5 

Casmania, California. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Where is Covolo? 

I 

7 ,i 

MR. DUNN: Covolo is, I hope, one of the most 

8 

environmental safest places in the state. It's about 40 miles 

9 

pff 101 over the mountains into a little valley. 

10 | 

SENATOR PETRIS: Which county? 

ii " 

ii MR. DUNN: That's in Mendocino County, where the 

12 

masonite plant is. 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Nothing is being done, Senator, about that masonite. 

i 

And it's killing people. And they're giving — they're 

J 

collecting money every three months, the county is, for them to 
keep polluting. They're — they've given variances; they've 
given them everything to not let that plant shut down. In the 
meantime, you've got hundreds of children, which are documented, 
in the schools that are sick. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Where is the nearest either 
Environmental Protection Office or Air Pollution Control, or — 

MR. DUNN: The air pollution control — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Water Quality? Where is the nearest 
one? 

MR. DUNN: The nearest one is in Santa Rosa and in 
Berkeley is one. 

The Air Pollution Control Office in Ukiah, the local 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 



118 
one for the county, the County Air Pollution Officer gets 
threats from the County, administrative. And I can't document 
that. He comes and tells us he can't say anything because 
they're going to fire him. 

Here's a guy who put a career into a county job, 

tj 

i; 

which happens a lot. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Shouldn't you go after the Board of 
isupervisors in that county to do — 

MR. DUNN: Well, you know, that's — that's really 

i 

Hgood, when you have a local Board of Supervisors that come out 
'in the newspaper and says, one of them, quote /unquote: "We want 
to save 450 jobs, and we'll sacrifice the other 14,000 people of 
this community. " 

SENATOR PETRIS: They actually said that? 

MR. DUNN: Yes, they actually said that. And that's 



16 

in the newspaper . That ' s quoted . 



17 
18 
19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

27 '' 

28 ' 



SENATOR PETRIS: That's grounds for impeachment. 

MR. DUNN: Well, there's a lot of grounds. The Brown 
Act is violated constantly, all right? There's a lot of things 
going. 

But we need help. We need help in this state with 
people that are not as affluent. We expect this man and people 
like him to protect us, and we don't want words any more. We 
want something done. We want to show some positive action for a 
change, not for him to get up and say, "I worked for 
Ruckelshaus . " Man, that doesn't mean nothing to me, except a 
lot of graves, okay? 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 

I 
I 
24 

25 

26 

27 
28 



119 
SENATOR PETRIS: Would you mind leaving your name, 

,and address, and phone with the Sergeants so I can get in touch 

!iwith you? 

MR. DUNN: I would be more than happy to. And I've 

got the documents. Senator, I will not tell you anything I 

ilcannot document . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm interested. Thanks very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Dunn. 

I 

The next witness is Mr. Doug Jackson, of Clean Water 
Action, San Francisco. 

MR. JACKSON: Good evening. My name is Doug Jackson, 
Clean Water Action. It's Clean Water Action Project. It's a 
nonprofit citizens' lobby. 

We organize citizen support to put pressure on our 
politicians, our bureaucratic agencies, to hold them accountable 
to protect our communities ad our water, and basically our right 
to clean, safe, ad affordable water. 

I am a canvasser and I'm an organizer. And if you 
don't know, a canvasser is somebody that comes to your door bout 
dinner time, asks you to take 30 seconds out of your day to 
listen to some very important issues. I knock on doors. I ask 
people about the problem. I say, "This is our solution; this is 
the legislation; this is how we're working to solve it. Can you 
contribute?" 

I've had checks written to me of over $200. These 
are your taxpayers . These are your voters that are giving their 
hard-earned money to organizations like ours to fight, to 



2 r 



3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 



12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I 



120 
brotect, their inalienable right to have clean and affordable 
water. 

They don't have it. They buy their water. They have 
water filters that can cost as much as $800. They have water 

({distillers set up because they don't trust the water filters, 

I 

land they don't trust Alhambra Water, or whatever they can get. 

We are currently fighting an incinerator in Martinez 
|!run by a French company called Rhonepoulenc . That company is 
under indictment in L.A. for federal violations, toxic 
violations . 

They come up to Martinez to run the same type of 
lant, incineration of toxic waste, importing it to be burned 
there . 

Cal EPA wants to de-regulate the permitting 
jtorocesses, streamline the permitting process. Streamline for 
who? 

Here's the permitting process from the citizen's 
point of view. I knock on doors. I get people to sign 
postcards, to write letters to their Congress people and their 
representatives. I go and I work a 12-hour day. I'm in my 10th 
hour of this day. I organize to get people to come out to these 
meetings to show a show of force from the citizens and taxpayers 
who pay our organizations' work that we do, and to say, "Look, 
we don't want this. We want to recycle. We want waste 
reduction. We want source reduction. We don't want it." 

That is what the citizens have to work with. 

Now, what Rhonepoulenc has to work with, millions of 



i 

121 

1 

jdollars. Thousands of dollars that they spread around in the 

jtown, lies. Full-page newspaper ads that we can't afford to 
3 

Jtake out, talking about how Greenpeace doesn't know the facts; 

4 

Clean Water Action doesn't know the facts. Communities for a 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 
12 
13 

14 
15 



Safe Environment don't know the facts. Let us tell you our 
facts . We have the money to pay for it . 

De-regulation of this permitting process makes it 
leasier for these organizations to run their business the way 
that they want to. We've seen the S&L scandal; that's 
de-regulation right there. 

This has an even far reacher [sic] effect. If 

they're allowed to pollute exactly how they want to, to turn 

their business and dump and burn exactly how they want to, 

you ' re going to have a bunch of dead towns on your hands . 

||You ' re going to see medical costs — talking about car 
16 

ijinsurance, let's talk about medical insurance. How are you 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



going to cover the cost of cancer, leukemia, all these things 
that are popping up from these toxic violations? The number of 
thousands of Superfund sites that we have in this state. 
If we de-regulate and take away the permit — 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You have 30 seconds, Mr. Jackson. 
MR. JACKSON: If we de-regulate the number of 
permitting processes that these corporations have to go through, 
we are taking the right away from the citizens to stand up for 
their communities, to stand up for their well being and their 
families, and their right to clean water, clean air, and would 
make it that much harder to oppose these kind of things . 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



122 
I oppose Mr. Strock's confirmation to this position, 
toothing's being done, and moving towards streamlining a 

regulation process is not what we want to see happen. 

I 

We want to see more effect for us to stand up for our 

i 

communities . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERT I: Thank you. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Just before you go, I can't resist a 
comment that a lot of this is under the banner of de-regulation: 
get government off our back. That's Ronald Reagan. He got a 
tremendous vote from the people. They apparently didn't 
understand what "get government off our back" means. 

What it means is, stop the controls and stop the 
regulations . 

We've got a big campaign going on in the State of 
California by business groups, publicizing the mythology that 
there are hundreds of companies leaving the state because of 
over regulation on pollution and pesticides, and other things. 

But the people who make those policies are elected by 
the same people who are complaining. I'd be curious to check 
the voting record in your county, where ever you come from. 
It's probably a minority. 

MR. JACKSON: San Francisco. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, San Francisco is a minority. 

But our problem is, that we keep running into this 
outcry. Some of us carried legislation to do exactly what you 
want to do . We run into that argument , that there ' s too much 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

8 i 

I 

9 

i 

10 

i 

ii 

I 
12 

13 

14 

15 
16 
17 
18 

19 

I 

20 



123 

i; 



21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



regulation of business. You're going to drive them out of the 

I 

jstate. The President right now stands alone in Rio de Janiero, 
saying, "I'm not going to sign that because it's bad for our 
business. " 

Well, all the European nations have business, too, 
and they're going to be taxed, you know, the western industrial 
countries that are allied with us . 

So, we have a big problem at the government level, 
number one, getting these things enacted. And then, getting an 
administration which will vigorously enforce them. 

Now, I have to say to the credit of Governor Wilson, 
who also repeatedly has said he doesn't want these anti-business 
regulations, at least he pulled that Agency out of the 
Department of Agriculture, which never did anything to enforce, 
never, and created a separate Agency, and focused attention on 
it. 

Mr. Strock is under tremendous pressure, and the 
jglare of the public spotlight, and the consumer and 
environmental groups, because he's out there, all by himself. 
He can't hide behind a gigantic Department of Food and 
Agriculture anymore. And he is specifically charged with doing 
something about it. 

Now, we're going to discuss Ruckelshaus later, next 
meeting, and so forth, but I just want to give credit where it's 
due. This Governor — 

MR. JACKSON: I understand that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — in contrast to the prior 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



124 



Governors who regularly vetoed my bills to create a separate 
agency for the environment, and fought against most of my bills 
on environmental protection and pesticides, and so forth, this 
Governor comes along and says, "Hey, we've got to go to work on 
this. We're going to take him out of Agriculture," which 
traditionally has been the handmaiden of the chemical companies. 

Strock is not going to be the handmaiden of the 
chemical companies. He's the only one who, within 30 days 
after he went into office, announced the first list on the 
dangerous pesticides under my bill that are going to be 
suspended. I've never seen that before. 

Now, he's got a long way to go. And I'm not saying 
he's done everything that I'd like to see him do, or that he 
himself wants to do, but believe me, I think he's on the right 
track. That's a refreshing change. 

You know, to you, the progress might be that much. 
But to me, where I've been sitting all these years, it's that 
much. 

That ' s not to take away from your comments at all . I 
agree with you 100 percent. But I think we've got a man with a 
mandate from the appointing Governor who will read the same 
statutes that have been on the books for years differently from 
the way they've been read in the past, or ignored in the past. 
I really believe that. 

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And if it doesn't turn out that way, 
I'll join your group. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



125 

MR. JACKSON: At a time when the federal EPA has 
publicly announced that the solution to our garbage solution — 
;pur garbage problems and toxic waste crisis is source reduction 
Band recycling and reduction, why is Cal EPA pushing through 
permitting processes for incinerators and landfill dumps? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, that's a good question. He'll 
comment on it, I'm sure. 

I want to thank you very much for your testimony. 

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Our next witness is Noel Otten of 
'Action Now. 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: She's not here. She had to 
leave. She will probably be back next week. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: She had to leave, and she will be 



back. 



Then, Mr. Strock, you may conclude. 

MR. STROCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished 



Members . 



If I might, because I know the hour's late, if I 
could be forgiven to go through several themes that arose in 
those statements . 

The first is, I must say, just speaking personally, 
I'm — I'm very disappointed in the reaction of several of the 
citizens' pesticides groups. I met with the groups at their 
request at length. The response, which I would like to provide 
to the Committee, I've already sent it to Mr. Petris because of 
his leadership on these specific issues, was intended to be very 



126 
1 

Siresponsive, and it laid the door open very explicitly for 

2 i| 

follow-up on a series of areas. And I would add that it is so 

3 ' 

long because it was written specifically, and I went through it 

4 

myself a tremendous length, an attempt to be responsive, and to 

j;get a dialogue going. 
6 

And indeed, one of the things that you would see in 

7 

that letter is that I immediately accepted the request of that 
8 

ijgroup to come on a tour they would put together when the 
9 

'legislative session is over to see areas of concern across the 
10 

'state. 
11 

Secondly, just briefly, I want to state categorically 



12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

22 

I 

i 

23 

I 

24 

i 

I 
25 

26 

27 
28 



that several statements with respect to the law enforcement, I 
differ with profoundly. The fact is that the U.S. law 
enforcement scheme, which like anything can be done, indeed, 
must be done better, is one of the areas right now that we can 
say the U.S. is the international leader. It's the only area I 
know of where the Netherlands come to us for advice. There 
ought to be more, again, and there likely will, but I think 
that's something to be proud of and to work to improve. 

The Governor is very committed to us being strong in 
that area. I wouldn't have been chosen except for my 
involvement in that issue, and I think the person we brought on 
to start our enforcement efforts, named Bill Carter, who's an 
experienced prosecutor from Los Angeles, should be a strong sign 
of this commitment, and we intend to make good on it. 

With respect to permitting standards, I would simply 
make the point that we're not talking here about just 



127 

1 

abolishing processes. California has many of the strictest 

2 I! 

environmental standards in the world, and indeed, for both 
3 J 

^environmental and economic reasons, that makes a lot of sense. 

4 

llAnd my top job is to defend those standards. 

5 |i 

The permitting processes are among the most complex 

6 

in the world. They're not being adopted elsewhere. That's not 

7 

irelevant to making the decision here, but they are simply the 
8 

Igoal to get to the standards, and they should be worked on in a 

9 

liserious way. And I believe the Governor's view is correct. 
10 

And I greatly — have been grateful for the 
ll ! 

opportunity to come forward with ideas for changing it, because 

12 

the fact is, that while that gives some difficulties for me, 
13 

personally working in the environmental area, and I get some 



14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 



20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



grief about it, if it's not done by the Environmental Agency, 
the lead will go to people whose concern is not the environment. 
And I think from the environmental perspective, that's not the 
way to go. 

I guess I'll just say in closing today, because I 
know it's a long day, and I would have the opportunity next week 
to go further, that again, I very much hope to earn your 
]confidence. I think we have a good, strong record. 

Enforcement, as — is extremely important to our 
"mission, and I think it's important to realize why, because not 
I just because enforcement is important, but because we have to, 
looking through the enforcement prism, look at laws, at what 

j! 

I they say, get them done. If there's a problem, come to the 
i 1 
Legislature, get them fixed. We don't simply reinterpret them 



128 

1 

on our own. 

2 | 

Thank you, and again, I'd hope to earn your support. 

3 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

4 

5 

6 
7 
8 
9 

10 



11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATOR PETRIS: I'd like to be able to talk to you 
soon on a bill I have relating to the schools. I have a bill — 
that's not the first year I've put it in — to eliminate certain 
dangerous pesticides from the schools. 

Tremendous opposition from the polluters, from the 

Chemical manufacturers. And it says, look, if the stuff you're 

J 

using is on this endangered — among these, we're not going to 

let you use it in the schools , either on the grounds to spray 

the plants, or inside to disinfect the bathroom, or use it on 

ilthe floors, and so forth. 
I 

It passed the Senate; it's over in the Assembly side 

right now in a committee. 

I'd like for you to review that, and hopefully, you'd 
see your way clear to giving that some support, SB 926. 

And there are other areas, problems, that have been 
brought up here that I personally would like to go over with 
you. 

Thank you. 

ij 

MR. STROCK: Yes, sir. Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Strock. 
With that, the Senate Rules Committee will conclude 
I'this hearing, and we will see you next Wednesday afternoon. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 



1 i 

2 ii 

4 

II 

5 

6 ji 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 



12 



13 
14 

15 |j 

16 ji 

17 || 

18 \ 
A 

19 | 

20 j! 

ll 

21 1! 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



129 
was terminated at approximately 
6:20 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



130 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of 
the State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; 
that the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel 
or attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand this /«J day of June, 1992. 




J. 'tflZA'K 
Shorthand Reporter 



203-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $7.00 per copy plus 
current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1100 J Street, B-15 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 

Please include Senate Publication Number 203-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



)AY, JUNE 17, 


1992 




2:35 P.M. 






u0 ouMfc.* ' 


S DEPT 




JUL 13 


tttt 




(eli i 



204-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1992 
2:35 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 
APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chair 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR HENRY MELLO 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

JAMES M. STROCK, Secretary 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

SENATOR KEN MADDY 

JOHN EARHART, Chairman 
Global Environment Fund 

LYNNE EDGERTON, Environmental Author & Attorney 
Climate Institute, Green Seal, 
Children's Earth Fund, Lighthawk 

GRANT FERRIER, Editor in Chief 

San Diego Business Journal , and President 

Environmental Business Publishing 

MICHAEL HERTEL, Manager of Environmental Affairs 
Southern California Edison 

MICHAEL TRAYNOR, Esq. 
Attorney at Law 



Ill 



APPEARANCES ( CONTINUED) 

DAVID W. WILMA, Special Agent in Charge 
United States EPA 

DOUG LOCKWOOD, Vice President 

American Environmental Management Corporation 

SENATOR MIKE THOMPSON 

PETER H. WEINER, Esq. 

Attorney at Law 

Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe 

SARA AMIR, Director at Large 

California Association of Professional Scientists 

SENATOR MARIAN BERGESON 

JACKSON R. GUALCO 

California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance 

LARRY LANDIS, Director 
Valley Keeper Project 
Yuba City 

LEWIS SANTER, Membership Coordinator and Field Organizer 
California Action Network 

GLENN ANDERSON 
California Family Farmers 

ROLAND M. VALENTINE 
Radioactive Active Network 

JANE MELANIE WILLIAMS 

Economist and Environmental Educator 

LEE HUDSON 

California Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides 

Group for Alternatives for Spreading Poisons 

JOAN CLAYBURGH, Director 
Pesticide Watch 

NOEL OTTEN, President and Director of Research 
Action Now, Los Angeles 

KRISTI OSBORN 

Concerned Citizens of Dunsmuir 

BRADLEY ANGEL, Toxic Campaign Director 
Greenpeace 



IV 



APPEARANCES (CONTINUED) 

GARRY A. FLINT, Ph.D., Psychologist 
Citizens for a Healthy Ukiah 

R. LYLE TALBOT 

Desert Citizens Against Pollution 

DAN OFFIELD, Special Agent 

U.S. Drug Enforcement 

Citizens Against Pollution and Industrial Toxics 

RALPH SATTLER 

Communities for a Safe Environment 

CATHY IVERS 

Communities for a Safe Environment 

STORMY WILLIAMS 

Southern Kern Residents Against Pollution 



28 



INDEX 



Proceedings 



Governor ' s Appointees : 



JAMES M. STROCK, Secretary- 
California Environmental Protection Agency 

Introduction by SENATOR KEN MADDY 

On Senator's Staff in 1970s 

Open Door to Everyone 

Strongly Urge Approval of Confirmation 

Witnesses in Support: 

JOHN EARHART, Chairman 
Global Environment Fund 

Creation of Global Environment Fund 

New Investment Opportunities 

Support Confirmation 

LYNNE EDGERTON 

Environmental Author & Attorney 
Climate Institute, Green Seal, 
Children's Earth Fund, Lighthawk 

Steps SECRETARY STROCK Has Already 

Taken Towards Securing Healthier Environment 

and Stronger Efficient Economy 

Creation of Cal EPA 

Advocation of Clean-up and Redevelopment 
of 18 Contaminated Military Bases 

Commitment to Vigorous and Effective 
Enforcement of Environmental Laws 

Recognition of Business Growth in 
Environmental Protection Technology 

Support for Confirmation 



Page 
1 



1 
1 
1 
2 
2 



2 
3 
4 
6 
6 



VI 



10 



11 



12 



13 



14 



GRANT FERRIER, Editor in Chief 

San Dieao Business Journal , and President 

Environmental Business Publishing 9 

Representing Environmental Industry 9 

Generation of $20 Billion in Revenues 

Last Year in California 9 

Environmental Service & Product 

Companies 9 

Need for Consistent Approach by Cal EPA 10 

U.S. Loss of Technological Advantage in 

Air Pollution Control to Japan 11 

Need for Solid and Integrated Approach to 
Environmental Protection in California 11 

MIKE HERTEL, Manager 

Environmental Affairs 

Southern California Edison 12 

Personal Qualities of Appointee 12 

Utilities Cannot Move Out of California 12 

Need for Strong Environmental Leadership 12 

Coordination to Disparate Environmental Agencies 13 

Support for Confirmation 13 

MICHAEL TRAYNOR, Esq. 

Attorney at Law 13 

Appointee Will Search for Best Science-Based 
Regulations 13 

Vigilant and Predictable Law Enforcement 13 

Endorsement of Confirmation 14 

DAVID WILMA, Special Agent in Charge 

United States EPA 14 

Enforcement of California's Stringent 

State Environmental Statutes 14 

Multimedia Approach to Criminal Enforcement 15 



Vll 



Cal EPA in Position to Coordinate Investigations 

and Enforcement in Areas Other than Hazardous 

Waste Control Act 15 

Selection of BILL CARTER, former Los 

Angeles D.A.'s Environmental Crime Unit, 

as Head of Cal EPA Enforcement 15 

DOUG LOCKWOOD, Vice President 

American Environmental Management Corporation 16 

Effectiveness of Cal EPA's 90-day Review 

Process 17 

Recommendations of Hazardous Waste Regulatory 
Programs Committee Already Implemented 17 

Reorganization of Department to Achieve 

Consistency in Program Implementation in Regions 17 

Endorsement of Confirmation 18 

SENATOR MIKE THOMPSON 18 

Worked with Appointee on Dunsmuir Spill and 
Protective Rail Safety Protective Act of 1991 18 

Accessibility of Office and Staff 18 

Urge Confirmation 19 

PETER WEINER, Esq. 

Attorney at Law 

Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe 19 

Support for Confirmation 19 

Tough Job 19 

Commitment to Strong, Fair Enforcement 20 

Creation of Open Dialogue on Prop. 65 20 

SARA AMIR, Director at Large 

California Association of Professional Scientists 21 

Need to Foster Economic Prosperity without 
Sacrificing Natural Resources 21 

Strong Support for Confirmation 21 



Vlll 



Leadership of Appointee Demonstrated in 
Aftermath of L.A. Riots 

Reorganization of Environmental Oversight 
Functions 

SENATOR MARIAN BERGESON 

Strong Support for Confirmation 

Unique Qualifications for Position 

JACK GUALCO 

California Council for Environmetnal and 

Economic Balance 

Supported Creation of Cal EPA 

Endorsement of Confirmation 

Witnesses with Concerns: 

LARRY LANDIS, Director 
Valley Keeper Project 

Inability to Show SECRETARY STROCK Concerns 
about Agricultural Spray Drift 

Concern about Entrenched Bureaucracy from 
Department of Food and Agriculture 

Provision of Photographs and Articles on 
Ag. Spray Drift 

Response by MR. STROCK 

New Hire of Enforcement Person to 
Work on Problems 

LEWIS SANTER, Membership Coordinator 
California Action Network 

Representing Concerns of Coalition of 
16 California Community Groups 

Meeting in Mid-May with SECRETARY STROCK 

Responses to Questions not Reassuring 

Reappointment of JAMES WELLS as Head of 
Department of Pesticide Regulation 



21 

22 
23 
23 
23 

23 

24 
24 



24 

25 

25 

25 
25 

25 

26 

26 
27 

27 

27 



IX 



DPR's Position against SB 520 27 

Pesticide Advisory Committee 27 

Lack of Clear Commitment 27 

Community Concerns not STROCK's Concern 28 

Quote that STROCK Does not Accept 

that Children and Public Are Being 

Exposed to Dangerous Pestsicides 28 

Need for Environmental Champion 29 

Response by MR. STROCK 29 

Background of JIM WELLS 29 

Attempt to Work with SENATOR PETRIS 

on SB 520 30 

Focus on Alternatives to Pesticides 30 

Mid-May Meeting 30 

Appreciation for Pest Management Advisory 

Panel and Beneficial Insect Directory 30 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Appointee Tough, but not Environmental 

Champion Yet 31 

Needed Witnesses to Support SB 520 31 

Prior Experiences when Department of Food 

and Ag. Was in Charge of Pesticides 31 

Bureaucrats Overruling Scientists 32 

Involvment of JIM WELLS in that 

Operation 32 

Urge Appointee to Review WELLS ' 

Position with Agency 32 

Need to Verify GOVERNOR'S Commitment 

in Personnel, Policies and Attitudes 32 



GLENN ANDERSON 

California Family Farmers 33 

Organic Almond Grower in Merced County 33 

Farm Research Project 33 

Conversion to Sustainable or Organic 

Farming Practices in Community 33 

STROCK's Position on Alternative Farming 34 

Reject Rate 34 

No Defense for Continued Chemical Almond 

Production 34 

Earthworm Study by U.C. Santa Cruz 34 

Invitation to Visit Organic Farm 35 

Response by MR. STROCK 35 

To Goal in Pesticides Is to Encourange 
Development and Move to Safer Alternatives 35 

Comments by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Familiarity with Sustainable Ag. Experiment 35 

Appreciation for Witness's Efforts 35 

JANE WILLIAMS 

Economist & Environmental Educator 36 

Difficult to Unseat Pesticide Inndustry 

and Trade in Toxic Waste 36 

Concerns about MR. STROCK's Former 

Boss, RUCKELSHAUS 36 

Conflict of Interest 36 

Oppose Ties to Big Business 36 

Response by MR. STROCK 36 

No Contacts or Links with RUCKELSHAUS 37 



XI 



ROLAND VALENTINE 

Radioactive Active Network 37 

New to Political Arena 37 

Over 20 Certified Toxic Waste Sites 

in Rosamund, California; Antelope Valley 38 

Disregard for Law and Public Safety at 

National Cement 38 

Appreciation for SECRETARY STROCK's 

Visit to Lancaster 39 

Concern for Commonality of Interest between 
Regulatory Agencies and Business 39 

Reading Material in STROCK's Outer Office 40 

Need for Director with Integrity 40 

Need to Evaluate Motives 42 
Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Vote on DEUKMEJIAN 42 

Separation of Military from 

Politics 42 

Not Everybody on Same Side on 

Need for Environmental Protection and 

Enforcement 43 

Long Fight for Pesticide Regulation 43 

DEUKMEJIAN' s Record of No Enforcement of 
Coastal Commission Act 44 

Appreciation to Witness for Entering 

Political Arena and Appearing at Hearing 44 

Some Republicans Care about Environment 45 

Response of MR. STROCK 45 

Promise to Share Magazines 45 

Scheduling of Lancaster-Lebec Visit 45 

Continuing to Meet with People across 

State 46 



Xll 



Witnesses in Opposition: 

LEE HUDSON 

Group for Alternatives for Spreading Poisons 

California Coalition ofr Alternatives to Pesticides 46 

Appointee Has Traditional Training and 

Experience 46 

California's Contamination Problems Require 
Proactive and Innovative Solutions 47 

Disquieting to See Former Dept. of Ag. 

Employees in Cal EPA 47 

Need to Seek Environmentally Sustainable 
Alternatives 47 

Lack of Response when Questioned about 

Preventative Programs in Place 48 

Farmers Suffering from California's 111- 

Advised Policies re: Alternatives to 

Pesticides 48 

Thousands of Acres Now Grown Organically 48 

Last Week's Baskets of Fruits & Vegetables 49 

Need to Change Course of Agriculture 50 

JOAN CLAYBURGH, Director 

Pesticide Watch 50 

Concern with Pesticides, and SECRETARY 

STROCK's Responses at Meeting re: Children's 

and Public's Exposure to Dangerous Pesticides 51 

Receipt of Weekly Calls from Concerned Mothers 

Whose Children are Affected by Pesticides 51 

Children in Farming Areas on 

Breathing Machines 51 

Exposure to Neurotoxic Pesticides 51 

Experiences of Nurses and Teachers 52 

Need for Director of Cal EPA to Acknowledge 

and Recognize Problem of Public's Exposure 52 



Xlll 



Inadequate Response from Community Agencies 52 

Agricultural Commissioners 52 

Agencies not Listening to Concerns of 
Commmunity Members 52 

Frustration of Community 53 

Lack of Enforcement in Urban Areas 53 

One Pest Control Company in Violation 

69 Times 53 

Application of Organophosphate in 

School Cafeteria while Children 

Present 54 

Only Small Fine for Company 54 

Need for Director to Acknowedge 

Seriousness of Exposure Issue 54 

Need for Aggressive Enforcement on Pesticide 

Issues 55 

Need to Move to Alternatives 55 

Current Responses Don ' t Show Commitment to 

above Needs 56 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

SB 520 Does Everything Witness Asks 56 

Request for Name of Operator of Fired 

Pesticide Company 56 

Bill to Protect Children in Schools from 
Poisons 57 

Response by MR. STROCK 57 

17-Page Response to Group's Concerns 57 

Commitment to Improving Pesticide 

Situation 57 

Only Area of Government that Has Made 

Progress in This Area 58 



XIV 



Ag. Commissioners Designated by Law as 

First Line Enforcers 58 

Working on More Standardized 

Enforcement 58 

Goal of Task Force on Alternatives 58 

NOEL OTTEN, President and Director of Researcfh 

Action Now, Los Angeles 58 

Not Paid Environmentalist 58 

Director's Response Lacking in Vision for 

New Direction in California's Environmental 

Quality Issues 59 

Problems Facing New Cal EPA 59 

Emergency Exemption Process in 

Registration 60 

Risk Assessment Process 60 

Crop Dusting over Central Valley 60 

Health Problems 60 

Data Gaps and Lack of Data Necessary to 

Support Registration for Use of Substances 61 

Blatant Disregard for Registration Process 61 

Request by U.S. EPA that Cal EPA Submit 

Human Study Data on Effects of Malathion 61 

Conflict of Interest Problem 61 

Offer of Documentation 61 

State's Conduct of Risk Assessments and 

Purposes Thereof 62 

Subject to Arbitrarily Determined 

Factors that Influence Assessment Outcome 62 

"Negligible Risk" Standard Adjusted 

Downward 6 3 

Cancer Risk has Increased 63 



XV 



Possibility of Using Risk Assessment 
Process to Justify Policies and Protect 
Economic Interests, not Human Health 63 

Risk Assessment Undemocratic and 

Unscientific 64 

Inability to Current Assessments 

to Consider Synergism and 

Biocumulation 64 

Many Health Effects Occur Long After 
Conclusion of Study 65 

No Neurotoxicity Testing Standards 

Included in Risk Assessment Process 65 

All Organophosphates are Neurotoxic 65 

Need for Adequate Training of Applicators and 

Users of Pesticides 65 

Director Must Acknolwedge Need to Chart New 

Court for Protecting Public's Health 66 

Response by MR. STROCK 66 

Need to Certify that Risk Assessment 

Work Is Used Properly and Followed by 

Uniform Protocols 66 

KRISTI OSBORN 

Concerned Citizens of Dunsmuir 66 

Dunsmuir Spill 66 

Background on Spill and Governmental 

Response 67 

No Knowledge of Current Levels of 

Metam Sodium in River and Vegetation 67 

People Still Sick and Experiencing 
Symptoms 67 

Spill Should Have Commanded STROCK' s Full 

Attention 67 

No Evacuation 68 

Community's Lack of Information 68 



XVI 



What is Cal EPA Doing Now with Regard to 

Dunsmuir and Metam Sodium Exposures 69 

Need for Strong Leadership 69 

Response by MR. STROCK 69 

First Visit to Dunsmuir Directly after 

Spill Occurred 69 

Planning to Return to Dunsmuir in Two 

Weeks 70 

BRADLEY ANGEL, Toxic Campaign Director 

Greenpeace 70 

California's Legacy of Poisoned Communities 70 

Need to Take Profit Motive out of Environmental 
Protection 71 

PETER WEINER Representive of Dow Chemical 71 

Accessibility of Director to Environmentalists 

not as Easy as Accessiblity for Industry 71 

Attempt to Gut Environmental Regulation by 
Streamlining Permit Process 71 

National Cement Systech Facility's Hazardous 

Waste Incineration Operation of Ten Years 72 

Leaked Document Exposing State's Real 

Motive Regarding Incinerator 72 

National Cement's Compliance Record 72 

No Environmental Impact Report to Date 73 

Landowner's Refusal to Sign RCRA Permit 
Application 73 

Quote from U.S. EPA re: State's 

Motives 73 

Cal EPA's Secret Plan to Push Through 

Incinerators 74 

Explores Three Options 75 

Advocates Siting Assistance, Acquisition 

and Ownership 76 



XV11 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Agency's Effort for Permit Streamlining 
Limit Public Access to Process 
Practice of Environmental Racism 

Response by MR. STROCK 

Concern with Process of Consideration 
with Respect to National Cement ' s 
Waste Incinerator 

Steps Taken Due to Above Concerns 

Adjustment in Reorganization for 
Toxics Program 

Department only Wants U.S. EPA 
to Enforce Regulations 

Rhone-Poulenc (Key Applicant for 
Waste Incinerator Project) Fighting 
Cal EPA's Efforts to Take over 
Authorization of Federal RCRA Program 

Cal EPA Leak Document Result of Request 
for New Ideas, and No Follow-up on 
Specific Idea Stated in Document 

Incineration is Tool of Last Resort 

Public Health Is First Consideration 

Permitting Reform 

Need for Simplification and 
Coordination between Agencies 

Acceptance at Rio Conference that 
Environment and Economy Go Together 

Japan's Commitment of $7 Billion for 
Environmental-Related Development 

Need to Assist in Development of 
Clean Industry 

Response by MR. ANGEL 

Insistance on Protection of Public Health 
and Full Public Participation 



76 
76 
76 
77 

77 
77 

77 

78 



78 

79 
79 
79 
79 

80 

80 

80 

81 
81 

81 



XV111 



Who is Lead Agency in Rhone-Poulenc 

Siting Process 81 

Kettleman City, State's Refusal to Translate 

Permit Documents into Understandable 

Language 81 

Pittsburg, Need for Public Hearing on 

Dow Chemical's Incinerator Proposal 81 

Dunsmuir, Pressure on Government from 

Business Interests to Open River 82 

GARRY FLINT, Ph.D., Psychologist 

Citizens for a Healthy Ukiah 83 

Opposition to Confirmation 83 

Opposition to Permit Streamlining 83 

Lack of Facilitation for Public Input 84 

Masonite Corporation's Pollution Record since 

1950 84 

Obtained Variance to Continue High Levels 

of Pollution 84 

Lack of Fines Imposed for Exceeding Limits 84 

Average Gallons Burned Per Year 84 

Pounds of Heavy Metals Released 84 

History of Chemical and Fuel Spills 85 

Chemical Waste Sludge Sold as Feed 

Supplement 85 

Chemical Contents of Sludge not 

Monitored by Any Agency 85 

Many Sick People in Ukiah 85 

High Incidence of Lymphoma 85 

Need for Strong Protection Agency 86 

Response by MR. STROCK 86 

Desire to Follow-up on Masonite 86 



XIX 



LYLE TALBOT 

Desert Citizens Against Pollution 86 

Problems in Antelope Valley with National 

Cement's Incinerator's Pollution 87 

Opposition to Confirmation 87 

Middlehauser ' s Health Risk Assessment Map 87 

Sensitive Receptors 87 

Incorrect Directional Bearings on Map 88 

No Notice to Receptors Downwind 88 

National Cement's Permits Issued by Kern 

County, but Effects Felt in L.A. County 89 

Emissions Bound to Fall into California 
Aquaduct 89 

Burning of Toxic Waste Based on 

Negative Declaration 89 

Need for More Protection from Cal EPA 90 

Need for Environmental Impact Report on 

National Cement 90 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERI re: 

Genuine Concern of People from Rosamond and 

Antelope Valley 90 

Response by MR. TALBOT 90 

State Receives Federal Money to 

Promote Toxic Waste Business 90 

Possibility of Incentive Money 

to Encourage Constructive Methods 

of Waste Reduction 90 

Response by MR. STROCK 90 

Steps Taken to Ensure Decision Process 

Won't Raise Doubts 91 

Working on Need for EIR on Two Levels 91 



XX 



Attempting to Improve Process, and Change 

Process so Problems Are not Repeated in 

Future 91 

Public Health First Concern in 

Permit Process 92 

DON OFF I ELD 

Citizens Against Pollution and Industrial Toxics 92 

Opposition to Dow's Proposed Incinerator 

Project in Pittsburg 92 

Vocation as Special Agent for Drug Enforcement 
Administration 93 

Defends Community against Illicit 

Chemical Substances 93 

Wonders Who Defends Him and Family 93 

Incineration as Last Result, and Public Health 

Major Concern of Agency not Borne Out in Dow 

Process 93 

Citizens of Antioch and Pittsburg New 

to Area 94 

Need Opportunity to Voice Public Comment 94 

Request for Extension of Time to Make Citizens 

Aware of Dow's Proposal 94 

Response by MR. STROCK 94 

Doesn't Know Facts Well Enough to Make 

Legal Suggestion to Toxics Department 94 

Commitment to Look into Matter 94 

Community Has Received One 30-day Extention 95 

Agency Intimated that Dow Incinerator 

Was "Done Deal" 95 

Response by MR. STROCK 95 

RALPH SATTLER 

Communities for a Safe Environment 96 

Opposed to Confirmation 96 



XXI 



Proposed Dow Incinerator 96 

Article in Contra Costa Times Indicates 

State and Feds Intend to Issue Permit 

Approval for Plant 96 

Concern for Streamlining Permit Process 96 

Draft EIR for Rhone-Poulenc Indicated 

Increased Cancer Risk 97 

Response by MR. STROCK 98 

Draft Permit Streamlining and Reform 

Proposal Out for Comment 98 

Extending Comment Time to Allow 

More Public Participation 98 

Request for Suggestions to Improve 

Process 98 

Accessiblity of Director to Groups Other than 
Industry and Inability to Get Responses from 
Department 98 

Opposition to Any Attempt to Change City of 
Martinez's Role as Lead Agency in Rhone-Poulenc 98 

Response by MR. STROCK 99 

Attempt to Be Accessible to Everyone 99 

Lead Agency Determination in Rhone-Poulenc 

Rests with Governor's Office of Planning 

and Research 99 

CATHY IVERS 

Communities for a Safe Environment 99 

Group Originally Formed in Opposition to 
Rhone-Poulenc Proposal in Bay Area 100 

Background of Proposal 100 

Increased Cancer Risk 100 

Transport of Waste to Facility 100 

Attempt to Replace Martinez with State as 

Lead Agency 100 



XX11 



State's Willingness to Mediate Differences 

between City and Rhone-Poulenc 101 

Role of Cal EPA 101 

Response by MR. STROCK 101 

No Bias Toward Incineration 101 

Would Cal EPA Attempt to Influence Changing 

the Lead Agency 101 

Response by MR. STROCK 101 

Request for Commitment of Agency not to 

Recommend or Influence Office of Planning 

and Research in Rhone-Poulenc Proposal 102 

Response by MR. STROCK 102 

Assurance from Cal EPA that Public 

Participation Will not Be Cut, Eliminated 

or Discouraged in Siting Proposals 102 

Response by MR. STROCK 102 

In Tanner Process, SECRETARY STROCK 

Is Point of Appeal 102 

No Bias Toward Incineration 103 

Issuance of Administrative Permits 103 

Response by MR. STROCK 103 

Permitting Reform Draft Proposal 103 

Need for Extensive Public Comment 104 

STORMY WILLIAMS 

Southern Kern Residents Against Pollution 104 

Residence is Rosamond, California 104 

Number of Toxic Sites, Plus State's Only 

Pay to Burn Toxic Incinerator 104 

No Regulation by Kern County or State 104 

Death of Children 105 



XX111 



Desert Citizens Are Products of Lack of 

Regulation 105 

Concern about Lack of EIR for National 

Cement's Facility 105 

National Cement Burned Toxic Waste for 

Eight Years without Notifying Anyone 106 

Federally Leaked Document in Packet 106 

Opposition to MR. RAUH as Acting Director 

of Permitting and Enforcement 106 

Concern with Fees Paid to State and County 

by National Cement 106 

EPA as Business Advocacy Department 106 

Streamlining Permit Process Would Eliminate 

Public Participation 107 

Six Major Environmental Problems in Mojave 107 

Siting of Toxic Projects on Minority Populations 108 

Need for Environmental Advocacy 109 

Letter from Young Girl Living near National 

Cement Facility 109 

State Toxicologist Never Interviwed Anyone 

that Filled OUt Medical Problems on Report 109 

Response by MR. STROCK 110 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Concern that Economic Considerations Are 

Driving Decisions of Agency 110 

Let Legislature Weigh Considerations 

other than Environment and Public Health 110 

Response by MR. STROCK 111 

Commitment to Environmental Protection 111 

Permitting Reform 111 

Need to Have Cal EPA be Lead to 

Protect Agency's Charge 112 



XXIV 



Legislature Looks to STROCK to Be Advocate 

for Environment and Public Health 112 

Expect Secretary of Agency to Be 

Unreasonable regarding Protection of 

Public Health and Environment 113 

Certain Areas of State Are Dumping Grounds 113 

Cannot Ignore Cancer Clusters 113 

Intention to Vote in Favor of Confirmation 113 

Concerned that EPA Has not Been Functioning 113 

Seems to be Agency of Business 113 

Putting Trust in SECRETARY STROCK to 

Reverse Image of Agency and Guard 

Public Health, not Business Health 114 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Number of Employees in Agency Who Came 

from Department of Food and Agriculture ' s 

Pesticide Control Program 114 

Difference in Approach 114 

Pesticide Control Make-up 115 

Labeled Industry's "Handmaiden" by 

Legislative Analyst in Report 116 

Employees ' Alliance to Chemical 

Industry or Public Health 116 

Farmers Used as Shields by Chemical 

Industry 116 

Hope Agency Can Help Public in Ukiah and 

Antelope Valley, and Other Places 117 

Expectation of Progress in Coming Year 117 

Response by MR. STROCK 118 

Big Difference in Department of 

Pesticide Regulation 118 

Purpose is Environmental Protection 118 



XXV 



Different Expectations of Program 118 

Motion to Confirm 119 

Committee Action 119 

Termination of Proceedings 119 

Certificate of Reporter 120 

Addendum: Written Testimony of LYNN EDGERTON 121 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

II 

22 

23 

i 

24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



1 
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Governor's appointees, the first 
on our list is Mr. James M. Strock, Secretary of the California 
Environmental Protection Agency. 

Senator Maddy is here to introduce Mr. Stock. 

SENATOR MADDY: Mr. Chairman and Members, you have 
before you a lengthy resume and bio on Mr. Strock, and I won't 
try to go through that . 

I think what it does display is something that I 
learned many years ago. Mr. Strock was on my staff back in the 
late 1970s, prior to the time that he went forward with his 
education, his law school education, and his education at 
Oxford, I think it was. At that time, he displayed a tremendous 
brilliance that is reflected, I think, in his academic record as 
well as his work experience, a compassion and a feeling for 
government. The thought that he was going to eventually end up 
back here in California never crossed our minds, I think, in 
those days, because he was going back to the east and continue 
to pursue his career, his academic career as well as his work 
career. 

But I'm delighted he's back. I think that he has 
almost a next-to-impossible job in the EPA during this 
particular climate that we have in California, but if there's 
anyone that is gifted enough, and bright enough, and well 
equipped enough to handle that kind of a job, Mr. Strock is that 
person. 



19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



2 

So that I would heartily encourage his confirmation. 
I think that he will do an excellent. My experience with him 
since he's been back here in California, and perhaps I had the 
inside because we knew each other so well, but I think all of 
you have found that it ' s an open door to everyone . He ' s 
listened to everyone. He's attempted to try to balance the 
interests that must be balanced within the Environmental 
Protection Agency; that is, that we're looking at a difficult 
situation in California from the standpoint of the business and 
economic climate, as well as worrying about the future of this 
state from an environmental point of view. 

So, I would ask the Members, look carefully to what 
he's done, what he's accomplished. Look carefully at his 
academic record, his business record, his experience in 
government, and certainly I would ask you very strongly to 
approve his confirmation and his appointment. 

So I thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

Okay, Mr. Strock, we'll ask you why you feel you're 
qualified? 

MR. STROCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
being before you a second time today. 

Perhaps knowing that I have had the opportunity to 
speak once before, I would just again thank the Committee for 
its consideration. I hope to earn your approval and to help you 
all in creating an Agency with the Governor that we can be proud 
of in the environmental arena. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



3 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

We heard witnesses last week who were out of the 
city. 

Now we will here support witnesses, then we'll hear 
witnesses who have concerns, and then we will hear opposition 
i|witness . 

So, we'll start with support witnesses. Please keep 
your testimony to no more than three minutes . That ■ s what we 
lasked of the witnesses whom we heard from last week. 

We will start with the people who signed up last 
week. We are not really going to add anybody new on, since last 
week was the time appointed for this hearing. So, unless there 
lis really an extraordinary case, I am not going to add anybody 
!to the list who was not on the list from last week. 

I will tell you who the witnesses that we have in 
support are: John Earhart, Lynne T. Edgerton, Grant Ferrier, 
Mike Hertel, Michael Traynor, David Wilma, Doug Lockwood, Dick 
Weiser, and Peter Weiner. 

So, maybe I'll just take people up in that order as I 
called them. Mr. Earhart. 

MR. EARHART: Good afternoon. 

Thank you for this opportunity to make a testimony 
before the Senate Rules Committee. My name is John Earhart, 
California for 35 years, and Chairman of the Global Environment 
Fund, an environmental investment fund based in Laguna Beach, 
California. 

I'm here today to support the nomination of James 



4 
Strock as Secretary California's Environmental Protection 
Agency . 

I'm also here because, as a Californian, I want to do 
everything I can possible to ensure the long-term ecological and 
economic balance of the state. California is a world leader in 
the environmental protection area, and this standard must be 
maintained into the next century, even as threats to its 
resources increase. 

As you know, I have previously sent to this Committee 
a letter expressing my enthusiastic support of Mr. Strock, and 
would like to take this opportunity to summarize that document. 

The Global Environment Fund was created in 1989 to 
'demonstrate that business development and environmental 
'protection can and must go hand-in-hand, in a sense, to test the 
sustainable development model. Global Environment Fund provides 
investors with a conservative yet innovative instrument through 
which they can take advantage of new investment opportunities in 
the environmental arena. 

Because of growing public demand and regulatory 
pressure for a cleaner environment, there are now exciting 
investment opportunities available to such areas — in such 
areas as water treatment, conservation, air pollution control 
and prevention, waste reduction, resource recycling, improved 
utilization, energy efficiency, and conservation. 

We seek to find and invest in innovative companies 
whose products and services and technologies contribute actively 
to environmental improvement. More than anything, the Fund is 



5 

systematically attempting to identify investment opportunities 
that promote environmental quality and greatly increase economic 
efficiencies, therefore contributing to the development of a 
more sustainable world. 

It is our belief that those companies unable to make 
the necessary adjustments to improve their resource utilization 
and reduce waste, pollution and outputs will under-perform in 
the marketplace and, perhaps, be out of business in the next 
century, not making a particularly good investment. 

We have found that there are very diverse and 
exciting opportunities in this investment arena. We have also 
found particularly California businesses are well ahead of the 
game on a world-wide basis. The business of the environment is 
clearly one area where California has a technological edge with 
great export potential. Of the 2,000-plus environmentally 
proactive companies that we are tracking and investing in, 10 
percent have their base in California. We are currently 
monitoring more than 200 companies, ranging in size from private 
start-up companies to large, integrated, well established firms. 
These companies are extremely important to California's economy 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Earhart, you have 30 seconds. 

MR. EARHART: Thirty seconds. All right, let me get 
to Jim. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. EARHART: I am testifying today in support of the 
Senate confirmation of James M. Strock, California's first 



12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



6 
Secretary of Environmental Protection. 

At this critical juncture in the economic and 
environmental history of California, it is imperative that we 
put into the Secretary's position someone who will vigorously 
fight for increased protection of our populous and natural 
heritage . 

Mr. Strode' s extensive education and experience in 
the area of environmental management, law, and enforcement make 
him uniquely qualified to be the state's top environmental 
officer. 

More importantly, however, his understanding of the 
direct relationship between comprehensive and vigorously 
enforced environmental standards , and long-term economic futures 
of the California [sic], make his appointment that much more 
critical . 

I can go on. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You made your point. 

MR. EARHART: Great, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Earhart. 

Lynne Edgerton. 

MS. EDGERTON: Good afternoon. My name is Lynne 
Edgerton. I'm an environmental author and attorney. I serve on 
the Board of the Climate Institute, Green Seal, the Children's 
Earth Fund, and Light Hawk. 

For approximately nine years , I served as a senior 
attorney and consultant with the Natural Resources Defense 
[Council in Los Angeles and New York City. 



19 
20 
21 

22 

i 
23 

24 ! 

25 
26 
27 
28 



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I thank 
you for the opportunity to speak in strong support of James 
Strock as California's first Secretary of Environmental 
Protection. Mr. Strock ' s education and prior experience make 
his highly qualified to serve as California's chief 
environmental protection officer. Indeed, many people familiar 
with his record as head of U.S. EPA Enforcement Unit credit him 
with being the most effective environment chief in EPA's 
history. 

Of equal importance to Calif ornians, however, is 
Mr. Strock 's commitment to maintaining high environmental 
standards, while, at the same time, promoting economic growth. 
What California's families must want is an environmental 
secretary will will work for both a clean environment and a 
sound economy for present and future generations . 

Mr. Strock has already taken many steps towards 
securing a healthier environment and a stronger efficient 
economy. I'll briefly discuss four. 

First, Mr. Strock successfully created Cal EPA, thus 
bringing the four agencies responsible for air, water, waste, 
toxic substances, and pesticides under one roof with 
environmental health specialists. This reorganization 
recognizes the interrelated nature of environmental problems and 
the need for California to develop incentives to reduce 
pollution and wastes overall. An integrated approach produces 
three results. First, new problems caused by pollutant behavior 
in the environment are more likely to be identified. Second, 



9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



8 

old problems are more likely to be assessed and cleaned up. And 
third, recognition of the damage the transfers of pollution 
among media can cause provides a strong incentive to prevent 
pollution. 

Second, Mr. Strock has strongly and effectively 
represented both California's interest in a clean environment 
and in its fiscal well being by advocating that the clean-up and 
redevelopment of the 18 contaminated military bases in our state 
be completed quickly and at federal expense. In so doing, 
Mr. Strock has demonstrated that he's willing to fight for both 
our environment and our pocketbook. 

Furthermore, by virtue of his considerable experience 
with the federal government, he knows when, how, and where to 
fight for the rights of Californians vis-a-vis the national 
government . 

Third, Mr. Strock 's commitment to vigorous and 
effective enforcement of state and federal environmental laws 
will be of enormous long-term value to Californians. Vigorous 
enforcement and compliance with environmental laws is essential 
to the protection of public health, to the protection of other 
important environmental values, and to the continued growth of 
California's fast expanding green businesses. It provides the 
catalyst for private business to invest in providing — in 
finding innovative solutions to environmental problems and in 
marketing those solutions, both at home and abroad. 

Finally, Mr. Strock understands two key economic 
truths. First, that environmental protection and technology 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



hold enormous growth potential for California business. And 
second, that government action must create, nurture, and sustain 
the market for environmental protection. 

Let me say in closing that I welcome the opportunity 
to work with Mr. Strock, the Legislature, business, 
environmentalists, and academicians as we build a strong 
California Environmental Protection Agency. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Ms. Edgerton. 

Grant Ferrier, Editor in Chief, San Diego Business 
Journal . 

MR. FERRIER: Thank you, Senators. I am with 
Environmental Business Journal . I'm the President of our 
company, Environmental Business Publishing, which is a small 
10-person firm in San Diego. 

I'm here representing a constituency that you may not 
be aware of, and that I think is very important for California 
to be aware of, and I think it's an area that Jim Strock himself 
is aware of and considers when running the Cal EPA, and that is 
the environmental industry. 

In the United States, it generated about $120 billion 
in revenues last year. In California, its portion was more than 
$20 billion of revenues for environmental service and product 
companies . These are companies performing environmental 
engineering work, site clean-up work, hazardous waste management 
and disposal businesses, analytical services for environmental 
testing, recycling, and so forth, and instruments, and other 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25' 

26 

27 

28 



10 
pollution control technology. 

This is a constituency that I think has not been 
represented, and I think it's very important to consider, and 
it's a business that relies primarily on environmental 
regulations and a strong, integrated approach to environmental 
regulations that I think Mr. Strock is uniquely qualified to 
continue with Cal EPA. These companies operate primarily 
gaining revenues from the generating industries who, obviously, 
have a stronger voice with you than the environmental companies 
themselves . 

There are a number of businesses which will depend on 
a consistent approach of having the Cal EPA in one office, and 
having all the six offices together, driving their business. 
They also rely heavily on the liability issue. As you may 
imagine, a number of companies with pollution problems will fix 
them only because of the fear of the liability that they may 
have to face lawsuits or enforcement actions from government 
agencies. So, in other words, having a sustained and integrated 
approach to environmental protection and regulation drives this 
very important business sector. 

Another angle in maintaining strength in 
environmental regulations is that a number of California 
companies have invested in looking at their problems 
proactively, and therefor, these companies are threatened — 
their competitive advantage they have invested for will be 
threatened if they don't maintain the strength of environmental 
regulations that would — that keeping a sustained system and 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 

14 

I 

15 

16 

i 

17 

i 

18 
19 
20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



11 

not starting all over again with Cal EPA, or having a new head 
of the department would create. 

One more point relates to what a couple of previous 
testimonies are, the United started environmental protection 
agencies in the world with EPA in 1970. We had a technological 
advantage in air pollution control in 1970. In the '80s, we've 
lost that to Japan and West Germany and some other European 
countries . 

Environmental technology is a key area to support 
both our national economy and trade deficits, and our state 
economy as the future builds, and as developing countries and 
mid-level countries, mid-tier countries, use pollution control 
technologies, clean-up technologies, as well as pollution 
prevention technologies. And it's extremely important that we 
in California maintain a very solid and integrated approach to 
our environmental protection, which will provide the economy and 
framework for these companies to operate here in California, and 
will give them valuable experience to export their products and 
services abroad. 

In the letter I submitted to you before, I also 
enclosed some data which was indicative that almost 180,000 
people are employed by the environmental industry in California, 
obviously very large, and as transition in the economy — 
particularly defense companies are a good example — a number of 
those businesses are applying their technical skills from 
defense and bombs to essentially environmental clean-up now. 
California has 12 percent of the nation's population, but 16 



12 
percent of qualified engineers. In other words, we have a 
technological advantage. Let's make sure we use the momentum of 
the peace dividend to apply that technology to environmental 
solutions, rather than lose it to other states or other areas. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Ferrier. 

The next is Mr. Mike Hertel, Manager of Environmental 
Affairs, Southern California Edison. 

Mr. Hertel. 

MR. HERTEL: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee, I won't take time to introduce myself since the 
Chairman's graciously done that. 

I am happy to be here on behalf of my Chairman, 
Mr. John Brice, and my President, Mr. Michael Peeve, to endorse 
James Strock for Secretary of Environmental Protection. 

I would like to speak to his personal qualities and 
recommend him highly to you on that ground. 

I've found Mr. Strock to be a man of great personal 
integrity. He has great personal conviction about protecting 
the environment, and he understands a truth that I think we, as 
a utility, cannot move our business out of California and do not 
want to. Namely, that there is a strong integration between 
environmental health and economic well being. We will not 
survive in Southern California without strong leadership in the 
environmental area, and I believe James Strock will provide 
that. 

I would also commend him to you because, in the time 
— short time that he's been here, it's been my personal 



13 

experience that he's brought a great deal of coordination to the 
very many and disparate environmental agencies that we have here 
in the state. I've noticed this change. I've felt it's very 
positive. I recommend him highly to you and urge you to 
recommend his confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Next is Mr. Michael Traynor, attorney at law. 

MR. TRAYNOR: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee, thank you. 

I've known Jim Strock since 1985. We've talked about 
the problems on joint and several liability, and Superfund 
clean-up sites when he was a staffer on Capitol Hill, and we've 
kept up a friendly communication and regard for each other since 
then. 

Earlier this year, we both joined the Board of the 
Environmental Law Institute together. 

I have the highest personal and professional regard 
for him. 

Two points . I think he will search for the best 
science-based regulations within his administration. He'll 
search for the best, and in doing that, try to pull the 
different interests together and have them work cooperatively 
together . 

The second point is that I believe strongly that he 
believes and will bring vigilant and predictable law enforcement 
to this Agency. And for that reason also, I strongly endorse 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

18 

I 
19 

20 

2. 

| 

22 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 



him. 



14 



Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

David Wilma f Special Agent in Charge, United States 



EPA. 



MR. WILMA: Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. I am the 
Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency in San Francisco. 

Since 1984, I've been responsible for the U.S. EPA's 
criminal enforcement program in California, Arizona, Nevada, 
Hawaii, and the trust territories of the Pacific. 

I participate in a network of investigators and 
prosecutors here in California who have built a reputation in 
environmental law enforcement as a model for other states . The 
U.S. EPA and the FBI are responsible for criminal investigations 
at the federal level, but we are unable to enforce the normally 
more stringent California state statutes. This latter 
responsibility has fallen to the California EPA, fewer than a 
dozen California Highway Patrol Officers, and selected district 
attorneys' offices. Only a few police departments are able to 
contribute resources to this effort. 

In California, an environmental criminal 
investigation typically involves a cooperative effort among law 
enforcement and regulatory agencies. Criminal investigators, 
representatives of public health agencies and prosecutors pool 
their talents and resources in building and presenting cases 
against the most serious environmental violators. This 



I 

2 

3 

4 



5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



15 
cooperation is a result of dedication and professionalism of the 
investigators and the direction provided by prosecutors . 

Task forces have developed in several counties to 

I 

['facilitate this effort, and federal law enforcement coordinating 
committees are active all over the state. 

In my nine years as an EPA Special Agent, I have 
discovered that environmental problems do not confine themselves 
to a single media, or statute, or regulation, or department, or 
bureau. Pollution problems and polluters cut across these 
artificial boundaries, and our enforcement efforts should as 
well. At U.S. EPA, my office can investigate a variety of 
environmental and other criminal violations because I am 
responsible for nine environmental statutes. We have found this 
multimedia approach to criminal enforcement to be superior to 
other efforts. This multimedia approach we can thank 
Mr. Strock for when he was our assistant administrator. 

To date, California criminal enforcement effort has 
been focused on the state's Hazardous Waste Control Act, with 
less time spent in the areas of water pollution, air pollution, 
and pesticide misuse. The California EPA is now in a position 
to coordinate investigations and enforcement in these other 
areas, and to begin to take a more comprehensive approach to 
environmental crime. 

To coordinate this effort for Cal EPA, Jim Strock has 
selected Mr. Bill Carter, former the Los Angeles District 
Attorney's Environmental Crime Unit. Bill and I have worked 
together, and he has a clear understanding of law enforcement 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



16 
leadership at the state level. He has participated in 
coordinated state, local, federal law enforcement efforts, and 
ihe knows the potential for such cooperation. Bill and I are 
working together now to build relationships and capabilities in 
jthis area . 

I am looking forward to working with Jim Strock and 
Bill Carter again, and the California EPA in future cases, and 
in further expanding environmental law enforcement. Together, 
we'll make a significant contribution to environmental 
protection and to our future. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Mr. Doug Lockwood, Vice President of American 
Environmental Management Corporation. 

MR. LOCKWOOD: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, my name is Doug Lockwood. I'm a Vice President in 
charge of Environmental Health and Safety for American 
Environmental Management Corporation. 

Our company provides environmental clean-up services, 
emergency response, analytical services, and disposal of 
hazardous waste for government and for industry. I've been with 
the company for about eight years, and prior to that, I worked 
for two years as a staff consultant to the Hazardous Waste 
Management Council, and five years prior to that, for various 
state environmental agencies. 

During my work in this field, I have participated in 
a number of efforts to identify problems and solutions for the 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

24 || 
25 
26 
27 
28 



17 
state's hazardous waste management problem. None of these 
efforts, however, were as comprehensive or well-supported as the 
90-day review process which Mr. Strock initiated in September of 
last year. I was able to participate in the Hazardous Waste 
Regulatory Programs Committee. The effort was broad-based, well 
represented, fully supported by the Department, most 
importantly, it was conducted to gather not filter input for Mr. 
Strock. 

Also impressive is that some recommendations have 
already been implemented. For instance, the Committee 
recommended that the state should assert its own priorities with 
EPA during negotiations for grant funding and authorization 
under the federal program, rather than accept EPA ' s priorities, 
which did not fully address the state's problems. I understand 
that Mr. Strock has done this, and achieved substantial 
concessions in negotiations with EPA. 

Another concern expressed by the Committee regarded 
the need to obtain an expensive permit modification upon 
completing rigorous corrective actions. Again, I understand 
that requirement has now been deleted, freeing up funds for 
investment into business and technology. 

Finally, the Department has undergone a 
reorganization driven in part by the Committee ' s concerns about 
consistency of program implementation in the regions. This 
reorg. appears to address a number of the issues raised by the 
Committee, including promoting an interactive working 
relationship between the Department and regulated industry. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



18 

We think these actions are indicative of Mr. Strode' s 
ability to improve environmental programs at the state by 
bringing equity, efficiency, and clarity to the programs without 
sacrificing the environmental protections mandated by law. 

We strongly endorse Mr. Strock's nomination. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Lockwood. 

MR. LOCKWOOD: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Mike Thompson is here . 

SENATOR THOMPSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Members. 

I just came down to add my name to the list of people 
who are supporting Mr. Strock. 

I want to say that I've had the opportunity to work 
with Mr. Strock on a couple of occasions on matters that were 
both germane and important to the people who I represent in my 
district on the issue of the Dunsmuir spill up in Siskyou and 
Shasta Counties. We worked very closely, crafting the rail — 
Protective Rail Safety Protection Act of 1991. Mr. Strock was 
very, very helpful in that. He even went with me to the site of 
the spill and talked to people who were put at risk as a result 
of some of the practices of that rail system. 

He worked closely with me on the mill rate increase 
attempt that we made on a couple occasions last year, and also 
on the wine — the lead in wine issues that's very important to 
not only district, but my home county. 

I've found his office to be accessible, and the 
people who work for him always interested in working with the 
people who work for me, and on the matters of concern to the 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



19 
people of this state and my district. 

I want to urge you to vote for his confirmation, and 
I look forward to casting an aye vote for him when the 
confirmation comes on the Floor. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

SENATOR THOMPSON: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I have Mr. Vic Weisser, President 
of the California Council of Environmental and Economic Balance. 
Mr. Weisser? 

Peter Weiner. 

MR. WEINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is 
Peter Weiner. I'm a partner at Heller, Ehrman, White and 
McAuliffe. It's a private law firm in San Francisco and other 
areas of California. 

I ' m very happy to be here today to support James 
Strock's nomination and confirmation as Secretary of 
Environmental Protection. 

Unlike many others who have testified, I did not know 
Jim before he came to California. As an ex-assistant to 
Governor Brown for Toxic Substances Control, and an attorney in 
private practice for decades for businesses and municipalities 
subject to Cal EPA jurisdiction, I can certainly join Senator 
Maddy in saying the Jim Strock has an almost impossible job. 
Certainly a tough job. It's tough to get a new agency off the 
ground. It's tough to coordinate independent agencies to 
produce firm, fair administration of the law. It's tough to 
maintain needed environmental protections in a tough economy 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 



20 
when some equate deregulation with growth. 

Jim Strock is an innovative, firm, and cautious 
leader. He listens to all sides. He reads voraciously. He 
retains both concepts and detail . He both leads and build 
consensus. He is incredibly accessible. 

Two achievements deserve special mention. First, as 
former head of enforcement of EPA, Mr. Strock has committed to 
strong, fair enforcement. He has moved quietly but quickly to 
integrate agency inspection procedures, cross train personnel, 
and coordinate prosecutions with district attorneys, thus 
maximizing enforcement resources. This nuts and bolts activity 
is unsung but vital to protecting the environment. That 
coordination would not otherwise occur. 

Second, environmentalists, industry, and local 
government have all agreed that both Proposition 65 and the 
Department of Toxic Substances Control are in need of attention. 
Mr. Strock has created an open dialogue on Proposition 65 that 
is ongoing and inclusive of all sides. His 90-day review 
committee for the Department of Toxic Substances Control, on 
which I was privileged to serve, brought almost 200 people 
together from all walks of life to reach consensus on needed 
changes. Mr. Strock has already implemented many of these 
recommendations to produce quicker responsiveness to problems 
and greater cost recovery at contamination sites. 

Jim Strock cares about science. He cares about the 
environment. But I think more importantly, it is clear to me 
that Jim Strock cares about people. 



21 

I urge you to support his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Weiner. 

We also Sara Amir of CAPS. 

MS. AMIR: My name is Sara Amir. I'm here in my 
capacity as Director at Large for the California Association of 
Professional Scientists. CAPS represents the 2100 state 
scientists in California government. 

I'm also an associate hazardous materials specialist 
with the Cal EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control. I have 
been with the Department for two years and currently work in the 
Los Angeles office. 

Prior to that, I worked for over five years with the 
Air Resources Board. 

As California looks towards the future, out state 
government will be faced with a challenge of fostering economic 
prosperity without sacrificing our precious natural resources. 
Cal EPA is an imperative necessity if this is to succeed, and 
Jim Strock's efforts while in the acting capacity have proven 
him to be the leader to make Cal EPA successful in this delicate 
task. 

CAPS strongly supports Mr. Strock's confirmation. 
His education and experience make him well qualified for the 
job. His leadership was demonstrated in the aftermath of the 
recent Los Angeles riots . I work in Los Angeles and saw first- 
hand the destruction resulting from the civil unrest. 

One consequence of the riots was the possible release 
of hazardous materials from the destruction of old buildings, 



22 

dry cleaners, paint, photo, and electronics shops, and the need 
for proper collection and disposal of these materials. Mr. 
Strock immediately visited the damages areas and met with the 
city and county officials to initiate the clean-up process, and 
dedicated staff and resources within our Los Angeles office. 

Mr. Strock' s innovation can be best demonstrated by 
his success in reorganizing the state's environmental oversight 
functions in the middle of two disastrous budget years . He has 
done this with our full cooperation. Though we are desperately 
in need of additional resources to do our job, we appreciate the 
leadership and the creativity shown by Mr. Strock in these 
difficult times. 

As scientists, we are excited about the new 
opportunities the Agency can provide for us. We anticipate many 
new challenges in the future. Global environmental problems 
call for California to consider impact beyond its borders when 
making business and environmental decisions. Mr. Strock has 
shown a willingness to do so. 

It is refreshing to work with a manager like Jim 
Strock, who is willing to work with his employees and their 
representative, CAPS, to find creative ways to maintain and 
improve public services. 

We urge you to confirm James Strock as Secretary of 
California EPA. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Thank you very much . 

Senator Bergeson. 



23 

SENATOR BERGESON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Members of the Committee. 

I would like to offer my strong support for the 
recommendation for confirmation of Jim Strock. I've had the 
opportunity of working with him since he has been here, and I 
have found it to be a very satisfying relationship in his 
support, cooperation, and effort, really, to work in a very 
constructive fashion with the Legislature. 

His impressive background, I'm certain you have 
information available to his — his past accomplishments and 
achievements, particularly in the field of environmental 
management. And I think at this time, when we look to the true 
issues of the environment as it relates to the long-term affects 
for California and its relationship to its economic benefits as 
well, and I find him very uniquely qualified in his expertise. 

So, I would like to — I would certainly hope that 
you would look favorably upon this individual because of his 
tremendous ability to accomplish the goals of the state, I feel 
are very important, not only to the Legislature, but to all the 
people of California. I think he's very uniquely qualified, and 
I would hope that you would recommend his approval. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Senator. 

Mr. Vic Weisser was not here, but Mr. Jack Gualco is 
here to testify in his place. 

MR. GUALCO: Mr. Chairman, Members, Jack Gualco on 
behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



24 

Balance, an organization representing the interests of labor, 
business and community activists. 

We, as you will recall, supported the creation of the 
California Environmental Protection Agency, and have been 
impressed with Secretary Strock's stewardship of that Agency in 
its infancy. We've found him to be fair and accessible, and 
willing to balance out various constituencies that CEEB has the 
pleasure of representing. 

So, without any qualification whatsoever, we fully 
endorse his nomination by the Governor, and encourage you to 
confirm him. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Gualco . 

Now, that then concludes the list of witnesses I had 
from last week. 

Is there anybody else here to testify in support? 
You could probably come up and give your name, if there is 
anyone here . I don ' t see anyone . 

Now we'll take people who've registered concerns. I 
have on my list Larry Landis, Director of the Valley Keeper 
Project; Lewis Santer, California Action Network, Glen Anderson, 
Jan Williams and Roland Valentine, Radioactive Action Network. 

Mr. Landis. 

MR. LANDIS: Thank you. My name is Larry Landis. 
I'm Director of the Valley Keeper Project. In my past life, I 
was a crop duster pilot. 

I'm here today because I'm concerned about 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



25 

accessibility with Mr. Strock. We've been unable to show our 
concerns about ag. spray drift. We're also concerned about the 
entrenched bureaucracy from the California Department of Food 
and Agriculture, who also has refused to listen for many, many 
years . 

I'd like to provide some photographs and an article 
or two by me for your consideration to the ag. spray drift 
article [sic] . 

I'd like to leave one with you, too, Mr. Strock. 

MR. STROCK: Certainly. 

MR. LANDIS: This is as brief as I can make it. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. He promises to read 



it. 



Chairman? 



MR. STROCK: May I say one thing for the record, Mr. 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please. 

MR. STROCK: We have spoken previously. We now have 
an enforcement lead person, and we'll hope to work with you 
further on the photographs you have . 

MR. LANDIS: I'll be delighted if that's possible, 
but that's not been the case. 

MR. STROCK: No, we just got the enforcement person. 
We just got him. 

MR. LANDIS: Is his name Jim Wells? 

MR. STROCK: No, his name is Bill Carter. 

MR. LANDIS: I'll look forward to meeting with him. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



26 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's the name of that project that 
you represent? 

MR. LANDIS: It's the Valley Keeper Project with 
David Brower. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Valley Keeper, okay. Thank you. 

MR. LANDIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Landis . 

Mr. Lewis Santer, California Action Network. 

MR. SANTER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
^ny name is Lewis Santer. I'm the Membership Coordinator and a 
field organizer for the California Action Network. We're a 
community-based environmental group working for the last 15 
years on issues of sustainable agriculture, water policy, and 
farmworker health and safety. 

Today, I'm also representing the concerns of a 
coalition of 16 California community groups, including the 
Valley Keeper, Mr. Landis, who work on a wide variety of 
pesticide issues, from Far Spring in the north, to Urban Spring 
in Los Angeles. Hopefully, you'll hear from some of the members 
of those groups later. 

Some of the members of this coalition have been 
environmental activists since the Southern Pacific herbicide 
spill, some for over 25 years. But all of us were heartened by 
the creation of Cal EPA by Governor Wilson, and Cal EPA's 
declaration that prevention would be their operational 
philosophy. 

Over the past year, however, we have developed a 



27 

number of concerns about Cal EPA and Mr. Strode' s leadership, so 
we met with Mr. Strock in mid-May and received answers to our 
questions last week. Mr. Strock' s actions before our meeting, 
at our meeting, and his responses afterwards have not been 
completely reassuring to our coalition, and I'd like to bring up 
some of those concerns. 

First, the reappointment of James Wells, Mr. Wells, 
to head the Department of Pesticide Regulation, told the 
environmental community that it was business as usual at DPR. 
For over a decade, Mr. Wells has battled alternative activists 
on every front. I heard that just this morning, DPR urged the 
defeat of Senator Petris ' s SB 520, a bill to protect 
farmworkers, and that's, I think, a further example of the kind 
of DPR that we're still working with. 

DPR also has a Pesticide Advisory Committee. Those 
are people appointed by Mr. Wells, and it's still stacked with 
chemical industry voices, and in my personal experience, 
operates more in the interests of industry than the public . 

Because of the reappointment of Mr. Wells, we do not 
see from Mr. Strock a clear environmental commitment. 

Our meeting with Mr. Strock was scheduled for one 
hour, and involved the coordination of 16 working people from 
Dunsmuir, California to L.A. After about five minutes of 
introductions, Mr. Strock told us that he could stay for another 
ten minutes, but that he could — we could continue to tell our 
concerns to Mr. Wells. 

After very angry reactions from our group, Mr. Strock 



28 

did stay the hour, but group members who had seen him give two 
hours to industry groups in the week before, felt that community 
concerns are not naturally Mr. Strock's first concern, based on 
what we felt was sort of a slight in terms of time that was 
allotted to us . 

In his written answer to the questions we raised at 
the meeting, Mr. Strock said, quote: 

"I do not accept the categorical 

statement that children and the 

public are being exposed to 

dangerous pesticides and that the 

Agency ..." 
meaning Cal EPA, 

"does not do enough to protect the 

environment and public health." 
End quote. 

That's another indication of our — of 
Mr. Strock's philosophy with which we do not agree. We believe 
that the public is exposed to quite a lot of pesticides. 

Before giving his testimony, this testimony, a number 
of lobbyists from larger environmental groups advised us, our 
coalition and myself, not to bring up concerns, or not to bring 
up opposition, that it would damage our access, because 
Mr. Strock's appointment was a done deal. 

Well, Senators, the community groups I work with are 
to that jaded. Access is an idea, an idea that's almost holy to 
full-time lobbyists, but it's not the prime concern of 



29 

homemakers, and workers in Brentwood or Lompoc, or Patterson, or 
Blythe, or areas that people live that we work with. 

What they want and what they ' re demanding is an 
environmental champion in Sacramento . Because they have 
families, and jobs, they cannot spend their days at the Capitol. 
So, they need a committed representative for their concerns in 
Sacramento . 

Government is already over full with people who go to 
bat for industry and business. It is not too much to ask that 
the head of the Environmental Protection Agency be as 
uncompromising as possible in defense of a clean and healthy 
California. 

We do not think that Mr. Strock is unredeemable, or 
lousy appointee, or anything like that. But we can only support 
him if he pledges to replace Jim Wells and other reappointments 
at DPR, and if he re-thinks the environmental and human impact 
of over 400 million pounds of pesticides being spread over 
California every day. 

Those are our concerns . I thank you for your time . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, please. 

MR. STROCK: If I could say a few things, please. 

First, with respect to Mr. Wells. He comes with an 
enforcement background in the pesticides area. I think he's 
done a very good job over the past year. He's worked, for 
example, was very significant in working with Senator Petris and 



28 



30 

others on the very strong data gaps reform bills of last year. 
And I think he has done a good job. 

And we're also working, I might add, and Mr. Wells in 
particular, to see if there are parts of SB 520 of Mr. Petris 
that we could work together on. 

Secondly, with respect to the pesticide advisory 
functions, we've established several new committees, one in 
particular focusing solely on the potential of getting 
alternatives to pesticides that includes representatives of 
environmental groups, and industry, and government. And we 
think that has real potential to serve a good service. 

With respect to the meeting, if I might say, that 
day, I was rushed, but I stayed no matter what. The week 
before, in fact, I had to do the same thing with industry, leave 
them. 

I've tried very hard. I'm putting in literally 
seven-day weeks to get out all across the state, to meet with 
all kinds of groups. Sometimes that gets me in trouble of doing 
too much in a day, but one thing I committed to that day with 
this group was to spend two days with them, touring parts of the 
state that had particular concerns to them. And I hope you'll 
consider that in putting that into perspective. 

MR. SANTER: If I can say something, we certainly 
appreciate the formation of the Pest Management Advisory group, 
the putting out of the beneficial insect directory that the 
Department is doing, and all efforts in that direction are 
certainly most appreciated. We'd like to se that become the 



31 

absolute number one priority of Cal EPA, and not simply a 
subsection. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next witness is Glenn 



Anderson. 



ask -- 



SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman, is this a good time to 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, please do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: On the question of Mr. Wells — 

MR. STROCK: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We did a lot of negotiating last 
year. But I've got to tell you, he's tough. Which is all 
right, but I really think he has a strong pro — well, let's say 
anti-clean-up orientation. 

And I would hope that the most you'd do there is put 
him on probation, because he really has not been a champion, as 
the prior witness complained. There's a lot of truth in that, 
and that wouldn't be so bad in an of itself, but the people 
running this shop prior to you have really been horrible. 

I mentioned it this morning. I had 520 up this 
morning. I wondering where some of these — too bad some of 
these witnesses weren't there this morning to add some of this 
good testimony. 

But we had some very bad experiences , so we ' re 
nervous about anybody who has that kind of a tilt. 

We had the situations before in which a political arm 
of the Department would overrule the scientific arm. Eighteen 



32 



10 



scientists quit because their integrity was undermined by 
janother branch. Their reports were being ignored, reports which 
were analyses of the required reports that had to come from the 
anufacturer in order to get a permit to sell the pesticides in 
California. The scientists, who were top quality, went over 
those very carefully, checked the protocols, wanted to make sure 
the studies were on the up and up. In some cases, they said we 
don't have enough information, so we can't recommend the 
marketing of this. In other cases they said this is so 
dangerous, we can't allow it. And they were overruled in both 
kinds of situations, over and over again. 

Mr. Wells was a part of that operation. I don't know 
what he did or didn't do, and I don't want to accuse him 
unfairly here, but I don't know of any instances where he was 
the champion who came in and said, "Hey, wait a minute I We've 
got these scientists here, and we have to follow. That's what 
they're here for. And this is not a subjective judgment. This 
is based on their knowledge of the scientific data, " and so 
forth. 

So, I would urge you to review that with him. And 
I ' d be happy to help in the review, because we really need to, 
let's say, verify the first impression when Governor Wilson 
decided to create this EPA, that that was a great step forward. 
That needs to be verified in the personnel, and the policies, 
and the attitudes of the people doing it under your direction. 

We can talk about that some more later. 

MR. STROCK: Thank you. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



33 

MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I'm Glenn Anderson. 

First of all, thank you very much for this 
opportunity to meet with you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee. 

I'm an organic almond grower in Merced County. I sit 
on several boards: Committee for Sustainable Agriculture, 
California Family Farmers, California Certified Organic Farmers. 
[I'm a member of the Advisory Panel to Farmers for Alternative 
Ag. Research, and I'm on a technical advisory committee with 
UCD. 

For the last four or five years, we have been — 
four-and-a-half years or so — we have been working on an on the 
farm research project that started as a comparative study 
between my brother and myself. I was an organic almond grower, 
and my brother was a chemical farmer, and we were trying to 
resolve the differences and why we seemed to be getting somewhat 
similar results. 

Now, this is several years later. My brother's farm 
is going to be converted over to an organic system, and the 
community around me is very much converting to sustainable or 
organic almond practices . We have now got about eight growers 
who, in my community, I'm working with to move their product to 
the market as certified organic. It's becoming somewhat of a 
wellspring of this kind of product. 

I guess I really came up here, spent my time driving, 
to ask you one very simple question, and that is: where will 
you come down in the long-term with respect to chemical farming 



34 

and the transition and the advent of — and I ' 11 use the old 
word, which is — organics? Some farmers don't like that one, 
but it's a perfectly good word in my vocabulary. What will be 
your position on that looking forward? 

I think that it's becoming really obvious to me that 
we can produce very high quality food. The rejection — the 
reject rate for the State of California on almonds for the 
nonpareil variety is almost four percent. Those of us that are 
doing it organically or that are part of the study are getting 
reject rates that are less than one percent. 

It's costing us less to produce it. We're getting 
higher quality, and the net returns are somewhat out of sight at 
this moment because the market demand's very high. 

It ' s absolutely insane at this point to continue to 
defend chemical almond production. These studies point that up. 
Here's one copy from 1990 that I had extra that I can leave with 
you. You can get copies for '91, and hopefully '92, and 
ongoing. We'll keep going with this thing. 

Here's something else that relates to it, and it's an 
earthworm study that came out of the Agri-ecology program down 
at U.C. Santa Cruz. Matthew Warner became interested in our 
study, and so he went out in our farms and took a sampling. It 
turns out that my brother and myself, my brother hasn't been 
spraying now for a couple of years, we now have massive amounts 
of earthworms in our orchards. A chemical orchard next door, he 
was able to find one. There's something going on in that soil. 
We've got like — 



35 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think you have about 30 more 
seconds, Mr. Anderson. 

MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I think I'm finished, anyway. 
I'm making my point, I believe. 

And you're welcome to come visit my farm anytime you 
like. 

MR. STROCK: Thank you. I would like to follow-up 
with you on it, and I do want to stress that clearly, our top 
goal in the pesticides are has to be to encourage the 
development and move toward safer alternatives . And I think one 
of the key things that has to be done is to get leaders like you 
together with people in the pesticides regulatory arms, as well 
as with the university system, and that's one reason we have 
this Alternatives Committee that I have high hopes for that is 
now beginning to meet. 

So, I hope we can follow-up. Thank you, Mr. 
Anderson . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I just wanted to thank Mr. Anderson. 
I'm familiar with the experiment that he and his brother 
conducted together. It's all done under legislation that I 
carried in creating the whole thing, sustainable agriculture and 
the university role. 

I hope under Mr. Strock's leadership, that will be 
expanded as much as possible. 

You've proved your case, I think, out there in the 
field over and over. Thank you. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



36 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Jane Williams. 

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm Jane Williams. I don't represent 
any group or any interest. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's all right. 

MS. WILLIAMS: But my training is that I'm an 
economist, trained at UCLA. For the last two years, I've been 
an environmental educator in a middle school . 

I'm just so interested to see the economic — I'll be 
very careful about my wording — but I think it ' s going to be 
very difficult to unseat the pesticide industry. It's also 
going to be very difficult to unseat a $60 billion a year trade 
in toxic waste. It's going to take very strong regulations and 
very strong legislation. 

I'm very concerned that Mr. Strock used to work for 
who is now the head of BFI, the largest solid waste corporation 
in the United States, Bill Ruckelshaus. I think that's a 
conflict of interest. 

I strongly oppose Mr. Strock because of his ties with 
big business, and I want to make it very plain the big business 
is the hazardous waste industry and the pesticide industry, 
multi-billion a year industry. 

Thank you for a chance to talk. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman, could I possibly say a 
couple of things? 

When — I worked for Mr. Ruckelshaus prior to his 
going to Browing and Ferris Industries, when he was the 



37 
administrator of the U.S. EPA. 

I have had no contacts or links of any type to be 
questioned with Mr. Ruckelshaus or anybody else in that 
industry. 

I want that, please, for the record. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

Mr. Roland Valentine. 

MR. VALENTINE: Mr. Chairman, Senators, I'm kind of 
like a fish out of water here. I've sat here, listened to some 
highly professional people, good talkers, and people with a 
background. And I assure you that I am not one of these. 

My name is Roland Valentine. I'm from Rosamond, 
California, which some of you may know is down in the Antelope 
Valley. Until very recently, who I really was was a retired 
military man with 20 years' service, 100 missions over North 
Vietnam, an ex-aerospace worker, part of the peace dividend, and 
a Goldwater Republican, if anybody remembers what those are. 

I was one of those who talked a lot about politics 
but never really had anything to do with it, so I'm totally out 
of place here, I'll have to admit. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We're out of place, too. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. VALENTINE: However, something else has changed 
in my life. The arrival of a new granddaughter has caused me to 
reassess what kind of a world my generation has built, and 
really where we should go with it from here. 

So, I started taking a look around, and I was not 



38 

overly pleased with what I saw. My little community of 
Rosamond, California, look around and you will find over 20 
certified, well-known toxic waste sites. 

I might also add, since living there I'm a cancer 
patient. 

I saw that as being the result of, obviously, no 
legislation. As you well know, we're right over the county line 
from Los Angeles County, and everybody comes up there and dumps 
on us, literally. 

I saw the terrible disaster in the making out at Ward 
Valley, and just scares me to death. And I saw the apparent 
disregard for the law and public safety happening at National 
Cement . 

And I see these things, not as a disease itself, but 
as a symptom of that disease. And as you will know, our 
forefathers built a very, very clear adversarial form of 
government, a government of checks and balances, where 
interested parties are caused to compete in the open for scarce 
resources. That the result of all these competitions are that 
the public officials and the public themselves are well enough 
informed to make a credible and reasonable decision. 

I think we're also all aware that as we're Americans, 
we are extremely suspicious of a monopoly. The reason for that 
is that there is no checks and balances; there's nobody watching 
the store. Everybody's on the same side. 

And this is kind of what I wanted to talk to you 
about today. 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

6 

i 
7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

27 

i 

28 



39 

Mr. Strock, I was personally very impressed with your 
showing up at Lancaster the other day, about ten days ago. This 
was obviously not a home-town crowd you were playing to, and I 
personally appreciate it. 

Although I honestly did understand the politics of 
such a trip within a couple days of your expected confirmation 
hearing, nonetheless, I was definitely impressed. Your presence 
did, in fact, give me hope. 

But what I heard at this meeting gave me a lot of 
concern, and I don't know, as a new guy on the block, trying to 
express my concerns is a little difficult. But I was concerned 
about what I was hearing about what seemed to be a commonality 
of interest between the regulatory agencies and the people that 
they're supposed to regulate, the businesses that develop by 
their very nature things that are hazardous to our — our 
environment . 

At the same time, I also realize, as a Goldwater 
Republican, that our process is critical to our long-term 
survival. And we all know there are many well established 
business advocacy units, like the Chamber of Commerce, the 
Commerce Department, and so on. But there's only one California 
EPA, and I hate to use those initials. I like to think of the 
Environmental Protection Agency better than EPA. 

Without the EPA, what do we have but a monopoly; a 
monopoly of government and business interests. 

And Mr. Strock is asking to be Mr. Cal EPA, the 
spokesman for the people, our children, your children, for 



40 

generations to come, and this is a long-term thing. And with 
these — these references I was hearing, this is the disease I 
was telling you about that just scares the living daylights out 
of me. 

Last week, after this hearing was continued, we had 
reason to stop by his second floor office, and where his very 
able lady there helped us out. But while I was standing there, 
I looked through the magazines that I found laying around, and I 
found a magazine from the coal industry, and some power 
industries, but I did not see magazines that I , as a grassroots 
person who cares, am familiar with. I didn't see the works of 
Jacques Cousteau, or Greenpeace, Audubon Society, Field and 
Stream . They may have been there, but I didn't seem them. 

I once heard someone say that if he could look at 
a man's library, he could know who that many really was. I did 
see, in all fairness, up on your floor, that I did see some 
magazines that appeared to address this item, but they were 
stuff I had never seen before. So, I'll just — I can't speak 
to that . 

Well, Senators, what I believe is that we're talking 
about something called integrity. Just plan, old fashioned 
integrity, the kind that all of us are going to have to answer 
as we approach the end of time on this planet. And that — that 
is something that will answer the question: have I been true to 
myself; have I been true to who I said I was; and have I been 
true to those who believed in me? 

Now, I do also realize that in the job that you 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 



41 
people have, there's got to be a lot of frustration with people 
who come off the street and try to politicize appointments, and 
to make life miserable for you, and I certainly can understand 
that. 

And I believe also that you do have to pass on a 
man's qualifications, or a person's qualifications for these 
jobs. That's — that is your job. 

And you have to admit, when you look at Mr. Strock's 
qualifications on paper, they are extraordinary. There is no 
one, I don't think, who could contest this. 

But I believe, quite honestly, that there's more to 
that than shows upon the paper. I think we have to look at 
one's motives and goals, as indicated by the historical record 
— actions, if you would — and we consider and I consider, 
personally, these are also qualifications that must be 
considered. 

Therefore, sir, I most respectfully ask you, as a 
person, to examine your integrity before you accept what is 
being offered to you by the State of California, the people, my 
grandchildren, your grandchildren, and determine for yourself 
whether or not you can actually say, feel in your heart, that 
you can — you can fight off this pressure to corrupt your 
organization and its mandate. And then I would ask you, if the 
answer to that is no, I cannot fight off this pressure, that you 
step aside and let them appoint somebody of obviously less 
stature than yourself. 

And Senators, as a citizen of this state, I would 



42 

respectfully remind you that we, the citizens, look at you to 
evaluate not only the qualifications, but the motives and 
integrity of those who come before you, and to make the 
appropriate decisions on their behalf for those who are either 
unable, or unwilling to do so. That's all we as a citizen can 
ask. 

I thank you for your time. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Valentine. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you hold on for a couple of 
questions? 

MR. VALENTINE: Certainly, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

I, too, want to thank you for being here. I think 
you're kind of late, but it's better late than never. 

And I welcome you to the political arena, so I'm 
going to ask you some political questions. 

Does a Goldwater Republican vote for Deukmejian? 

MR. VALENTINE: This particular one, no, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: No? 

MR. VALENTINE: No, sir. 

I must remind you, I came out of the military, where 
at least my part of the military, the joining of politics and 
the military way of life was essentially — didn't happen. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You separate them. 

MR. VALENTINE: Stayed out of it. 



43 

SENATOR PETRIS: You've only been out how long? 

MR. VALENTINE: I've been out about ten years. I'm 
just starting to realize that I need to get in, pardon the 
expression. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I was intrigued by your 
comment that everybody seems to be on the same side, and I just 
want to hasten to point out to you, that's not true at all. 

Some of the people who've come up here and complained 
over the years have elected people to office that are doing the 
opposite of what you want to do. 

For example, on this pesticide thing that you're 
concerned about, rightfully, we fought and fought and fought 
with Governor Deukmejian to get that legislation on the books. 
He was totally opposed to it. And the same response, "More 
regulations. You're dumping a lot more burdens on business; 
you're going to drive business out of the state; you're putting 
business at a competitive disadvantage," and on and on it went. 

And the Governor was a gallant and devoted warrior in 
the interests of knocking down any bill that he thought fit into 
that category. 

Now you're hearing a lot of the same stuff right now. 
This morning we had the hearing on 520, and the opposition said, 
"It costs too much for us to do what you want to do." And I 
said, "Well, how do you measure cost when we're saving lives?" 
Which is literally what we're trying to do. 

So, I would invite you and all the other Goldwater 
Republicans to examine very closely who these guys are in all 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



44 
the offices. 

Now, Governor Deukmejian had a pretty good track 
record. When he was Attorney General, he was charged with the 
responsibility for enforcing the Coastal Act, the Coastal 
Commission, to save our coasts. We couldn't get it out of the 
legislature, so a bunch of us got together and put it on the 
[ballot to go through an initiative process, and the people 
overwhelmingly supported it. 

The A.G. was specifically charged with enforcement. 
And the one who was in office at the time did it. He created 
the Division, five or six lawyers. 

Deukmejian comes along and closes it down. He closes 
it down, and there's no more enforcement of the Coastal Act. 

Now come people who say, "You should have done this 
or that to protect the coast." Well, where were you? The track 
record was clear. He got a lot of publicity when he did that. 
There was a big controversy over that, and a lot of criticisms 
and complaints, and efforts to try to get them to put those 
people back in. He wouldn't do it. 

So, you know, a lot of people bring this on 
themselves. So, I'd like to offer my thanks to you for being 
here. I hope you stay aboard, and I hope you will examine the 
thing further, because you're going to find out that everybody's 
not on the same side. 

We're not winning all the battles. We're only 
winning a handful, but we're trying, and we'd welcome your 
support on it as we go along. 



45 

MR. VALENTINE: Thank you, sir, and I guarantee you 
that my personal support is there. And I will have to admit 
that, as I started dealing with some of these people, they look 
at me kind of like, well, kind of strange when I tell them I'm a 
Republican, because apparently the word is out that Republicans 
don ' t care about our planet and the environment . 

That's not true. There are some of those of us who 
care. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There are a lot of very good 
conservationists in the Republican ranks. They don't get 
elected to the governorship. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. VALENTINE: Thank you. 

MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman, could I please say a 
couple of things. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, please. 

MR. STROCK: Reacting to Mr. Valentine's really 
thoughtful remarks, first of all, I'll take a look at the 
magazines. I probably have all the ones he likes in my office 
and have not been sharing them with the people out front. I'll 
get them back out . 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. STROCK: Second, I would say that he mentioned 
the timing of the hearing at Lancaster and Lebec . I did not set 
the timing for that hearing. That happened to be scheduled. In 
fact, it was a tough time for me. I was — I was out until 
very, very late in the morning to get there and get back right 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

26 \ 

27 

li 
28 



46 
before the hearing last week. It was, I believe, Monday night. 

But I'll think you'll find, if I might add for the 
record, that I have met with people across the state, and I 
continue to do that and don't just deal with these things on 
paper . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

Now we have opposition witnesses. The ones I have 
are Lee Hudson, representative of the Group for Alternatives for 
Spreading Poisons and the California Coalition for Alternatives 
to Pesticides; Joan Clayburgh of Pesticide Watch; Tom Candrian, 
Pesticide Watch; Noel Otten of Action Now; Bradley Angel, a 
Toxic Campaign Director for Greenpeace; Dr. Gary Flint, Citizens 
for a Healthy Ukiah; Lyle Talbot, Health Risk Assessment; Dan 
Offield, of CAPIT; Kristi Osborn of Concerned Citizens of 
Dunsmuir; and Ralph Sattler and Cathy Ivers, Committee for a 
Safe Environment . 

Now, Mr. Hudson or Ms. Hudson? Ms. Hudson, there we 
go. 

MS. HUDSON: I didn't realize there was another 
category in between opposition and support. I'm not sure where 
I belong. 

We did meet with Mr. Strock, and I will say he is 
very personable, very nice, obviously very bright. 

What we do know of his background, however, indicates 
to us that his training and experience is grievously 
traditional . 

The problems that we face as Calif ornians, however, 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



47 

with respect to surface and groundwater contamination, air 
contamination, foods that are poisoned systemically with 
foiocides, soils which are depleted of nutrients and then 
Ipoisoned with chemical fertilizers, these are all problems which 
are going to require the mind-set of someone who ' s capable of 
very proactive and very innovative solutions . 

We do find it rather disquieting to see that 
[Mr. Strock has flanked himself with lieutenants from the 
Department of Food and Agriculture, who have made a career out 
of thwarting every reasonable alternative to the use of poisons 
in agriculture. This in spite of Governor Wilson's statement at 
the beginning of his term that the theme of his administration 
would be prevention rather than clean-up. 

Gentlemen, I think we need fresh, forward-looking 
regulators. Business as usual no longer brings us comfort, and 
safety, and the good life. Industry also can and must look to 
viable, sustainable technologies and products. They need, 
however, the leadership of one who has the familiarity with and 
the penchant for seeking commercially profitable, 
environmentally sustainable alternatives. 

That's the key word here throughout, alternatives. 

My colleagues in the anti-pesticide movement and I 
collectively represent literally thousands of years of 
experience in alternatives. The bottom line is that the 
solutions are there. 

Mr. Strock' s response, his written response, to one 
of the questions that we asked, which was with respect to what 



48 

preventative programs are in place, where are they, how can we 
review them, how can we respond to them both pro and 
retroactively, and the response was that 14 years ago, 
integrated pest management was initiated in this state. That 
was a disquieting response. 

Depending on how it is employed, IPM can be a 
valuable tool, moving us toward the elimination of pesticides, 
or it really can be lip service, and then just proceed as usual. 
In 14 years in California, IPM has meant "Talk the Good Talk, 
and then Spray On . " 

Now, my remarks are geared more toward agriculture 
today, but I could be talking to you about alternatives with 
respect to household toxins, business toxins. I work for the 
county's Tanner Committee, dealing with hazardous waste 
alternatives . 

But with respect to agriculture, no one is really 
suffering more from our ill advised policies than the farmers, 
whose land is spent, and who find themselves being endangered 
health-wise because of our ill advised policies. They are the 
most immediately and most profoundly impacted by toxic chemical 
use. 

And yet, every crop grown commercially in California 
today can and is being grown in a commercially viable way 
organically, every single crop. There are, as Will Allen 
testified last week to you, over 71,000 acres in California in 
the certified program, and over 150,000 acres grown organically 
right now. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



49 

Nonchemical food tastes better; it looks better; it 
has more nutrition. It's healthy and delicious. 

Now, last week I had a basket of fruits and 
vegetables, and so forth — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I remember it. 

MS. HUDSON: You remember that. 

Unfortunately, we weren't able to duplicate that. 
What I had intended to do was to have a representative basket of 
food which — and that basket, I do want to say, there was rice 
from Sacramento Valley, apple sauce from Sonoma, strawberries 
from Watsonville, vegetables from the San Joaquin Valley, wine 
from Napa Valley, cotton from the south, all this was grown 
organically, including the T-shirt that was included in that 
basket. 

Also, next to that basket was a box or a basket of 
food that was grown chemically. And I really wanted to have 
that for you to give that to you, and to say to you, the one was 
grown with chemicals; the other was grown with sun, water, 
nutrients, and common sense. Which one would you want to serve 
to your loved ones if you really had the choice? 

The basket that was organic really represents the 
future of agriculture. Agriculture is the highest growing 
growth sector in the food industry. It is a $2 billion industry 
in the United States, and it is the future. 

So, I wish that we had this basket. I'd like to give 
you a basket and ask which one you would prefer to eat. 

MR. STROCK: I'd probably eat both, because I love 



2 
3 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



50 
all those foods. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. STROCK: I'd appreciate it. 

MS. HUDSON: But if you had the choice, and one 
really signifies the future, the other signifies death. 

And so, I would like you gentlemen to consider very 
jcarefully who you think should head the Agency that's going to 
jbe responsible, not just of overseeing the protection of our 
fragile environment, but actually changing the course. 

That's what we need to do, Jim. So if you get in 
there, and I'm sure you will, we need to look to changing the 
course. We cannot do business as usual. 

Thank you. 

MR. STROCK: I would hope to earn your confidence. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Hudson. 

Noel Otten. 

MS. OTTEN: I think Joan Clayburgh is next. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Excuse me, yes, I'm sorry. 

Joan Clayburgh. 

MS. CLAYBURGH: My name is Joan Clayburgh. I'm the 
Director for Pesticide Watch. 

I'm here today because, as we all know, Cal EPA, one 
of the main reasons why it was set up was to address the 
pesticide issue. I think there is a lot of concern about the 
California Department of Food and Agriculture and its dual roles 
both to promote agriculture and, some would way, to promote 
pesticides, as well as to protect public health and the 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



51 
environment . 

That's why we're here today. We take very seriously 
that Cal EPA's -- one of its main missions is to protect the 
public from pesticides, and choosing the leader for that Agency 
is critical to seeing that goal through. 

We're here because we're not convinced at all that 
Secretary Strock currently, or Mr. James Strock, is the person 
to actually meet those goals . And one of the prime concerns 
was, we — base this on basically our observations over the last 
year, and again, a meeting that we had recently, as well as some 
responses to that meeting. And one of the things he stated was 
that he did not accept the fact that the public and children are 
exposed to dangerous pesticides, nor that the Agency does enough 
to protect them. 

We heartily disagree with that statement, and that's 
because we work with community groups across the State of 
California. We receive calls on a weekly basis from people who 
are directly affected by pesticides, and particularly children 
who are being affected, and mothers who are very concerned about 
their situations. And I wanted to outline some of these 
concerns . 

One is, in particular, we find a lot of mothers from 
agricultural areas calling us, because their children are on 
breathing machines that seem to correspond to spray seasons . 

We also know that their doctors have confirmed that 
their exposure has resulted in — their effects have been a 
result of their exposure to neurotoxic pesticides that are being 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

26 

!| 

27 

P 
28 



52 
used around their agricultural communities . 

We know of nurses who talk about communities where 
they see a particular type of cancer, and before they even know 
where the individual's from, they can guess what particular part 
of the community they're from. 

We know of teachers in areas where their schools, 
it's common to have drawers full of asthma medication because of 
how severe the situation is right around their schools. 

So to us, there's no doubt that the public is being 
exposed to dangerous pesticides. And we think it's very 
foremost that the Director of the Agency also agree and 
recognize that this is a problem. 

The response to the agencies that we're finding in 
these communities, when they cry out for help, has not been 
adequate. In particular, they're always directed first to the 
agricultural commissioners. And here we find a myriad of not 
adequate responses. One has been, when there's been drift in 
the community, they'll agree to send someone out to park their 
car during the next application, and actually monitor the car to 
see if there's spray drift, you know, hitting the car windshield 
or hitting the car. That, to us, is not an adequate response. 

In addition to that, they've — out of a lot of 
pleading, they've finally been able to get agencies to come out 
to their areas to talk about this issue, but unfortunately, the 
agencies haven't often been listening to the concerns from the 
community members. Instead, they've been presenting why there 
actually couldn't be a problem because this is the current 



53 

regulation, and they're set out to protect them. They'll show 
maps up, you know, and actually mark up where restricted 
materials aren't allowed to be applied, and really try to 
convince the community that this, you know, the asthma, or the 
breathing machines their children are on, you know, it's beyond 
them to understand how that could possibly be related to 
pesticides . 

And so, we're always getting calls from people 
extremely frustrated with dealing with these agricultural 
commissioners. In fact, the only results we've seen has been 
because of the dedication of mothers who, for example, have 
finally got a fence up out next to the school yard to make sure 
the kids don't run out and actually play in the fields, or have 
actually gotten a 1-800 number set up so they can call the night 
before to see if there's any pesticide applications near their 
school or near their home, and then they can either keep their 
children out of school, or they can move their children to 
someone else's home that's not near the application site. 

To us, that's not a solution, and we're very 
concerned about this problem. 

When we — this isn't just an agricultural problem, 
though, as well. It's also an urban problem, and here it's 
particularly again regarding enforcement. We've had — been 
dealing with pesticide use in schools, and one scenario has been 
jthat one mother found out that a pest control company doing 
service for her school district has violated the law 69 times. 
And the way she found out, unfortunately, was because her 



54 

children were coming home with headaches, and when she checked 
it out, it corresponded with applications being down by the pest 
control company. When they checked that out, the pest control 
company was violating the law by applying a pesticide that was 
an organophosphate in the school cafeteria when the kids were 
present. It's a blatant violation. 

So, she got the school district to fire the company, 
but the ag. commissioner only would agree to actually put a very 
small fine on the company. And in my opinion, this is such a 
gross violation that there should actually have been — this 
applicators license should have been pulled. 

So, because of that, we actually sat down and 
presented to Strock some of our concerns, and listed out a set 
of demands. And the response to these demands, to us, just was 
not adequate, we think, to be both the aggressive leader that we 
need. And let me give you an example here. We asked him if he 
could address the issue of drift, and we got back basically 
quotes for, you know, what the current regulations are. 

But what we were, I think, looking for, and what we 
didn't see, was actually an indication that Secretary Strock 
agreed that this was a serious issue, and that there needed 
further action to be taken to really adequately address it. 

We also — I guess the other thing we were concerned 
about, obviously, is pesticides and children's exposure. And 
here, we again got a response back from Secretary Strock. It 
actually lists — you know, puts out the scientific process for 
risk assessment, and how that includes children's exposure 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



55 

through dietary exposure and home exposure. However, again, we 
were very concerned, because one, it didn't mention anything 
about agricultural exposure. We're concerned about the risk 
assessment process in, again, these children who actually are 
going to school right next to a field, or playing or living 
right next to a field, and their exposure, and how does risk 
assessment take that into account. 

But in addition, we haven't ever gotten a written 
standards showing us that the Department of Pesticide Regulation 
has a very strict protocol for how — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You have 30 more seconds. 

MS. CLAYBURGH: Okay. 

— and such children's exposure. 

I mean, I could go on and on about our concerns with 
the list. But I guess the bottom line is, we really want to see 
a leader for this Agency who first and foremost says that they 
are going to act on the pesticide issue, that they are going to 
aggressively work to reduce the most dangerous pesticides, and 
that their real goal is to promote safe pest control. It's not 
to promote the use of pesticides safely. In our opinion, 
pesticides are just one teeny piece of a real, you know, pest 
control program, but that their first goal is to promote safe 
pest control. If we're going to use pesticides, then it could 
be used safely. 

I think it's a whole different mentality than what 
we've seen in the responses currently. And again, it just point 
to what other people are saying, and that is that there are 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



56 
alternatives, and we need to be moving toward them. And it's 
pore than setting up actual committees to study the issue. It's 
a matter of action. 

And so, if Mr. Strock could agree and make some 
promises to this Committee today that he will, indeed, agree 
that there are significant pesticide exposures going on, and 
that he will actively work to address those, and that means 
action, not just quoting us back regulations that are currently 
on the books, then we would be happy to dance on the table and 
support his appointment, if he can make that promise to you 
today . 

But unfortunately, the current response that we have 
didn't indicate that that might happen. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris, then Mr. Strock. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Again, I wish you were here this 
morning, because I have a bill that does exactly that. And all 
the pesticide companies were there, opposing it, even though it 
was primarily aimed at the agricultural area. They were talking 
about the urban impact, and it stresses the use of substitutes, 
alternatives, and so forth. 

I'd be interested in getting the name of that 
particular operator, if you could jot it down and leave it with 
the Sergeant. 

MS. CLAYBURGH: I'll give it to you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And the location and so forth, and 
if you want to send me a letter on it, I want to personally 



57 
pursue that, because they're saying there are not such problems. 

I have a different bill right now that's over in the 
Assembly that is aimed at protecting children in the schools. 
We're trying to eliminate certain poisons from being used in the 
schools. And I could use some help by getting this information. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Strock. 

MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman, if I might say a few 
things, reacting to Ms. Clayburgh's statement. 

With respect to the — my response to her, I would 
again note for the Committee, that was 17 pages, prepared to be 
very specific. It was not an attempt to be evasive at all, and 
I think it was setting a standard far better than government 
usually meets, in my judgment. 

My reaction to part of her — the quote she had, that 
I rejected the view that we weren't committed to improving the 
situation with pesticides, was my reaction to her saying we were 
not committed to doing it. 

We are committed to doing it . There ' s no other 
reason for a Cal EPA unless we're committed to doing it, and 
that was why I reacted that way, and I still would. We're 
clearly committed to progress in that area. 

I'd also stress for people who look at government in 
general, that of all the areas of government regulation in the 
past 20 years — housing, education, crime, social welfare — I 
think we're working in the only one, because of leadership like 
people who I sit before, where we have made and have the real 



58 
potential to make further progress. 

With respect to the ag. commissioners, I would add 
that the law sets them up as the first line enforcers. We are 
working with them to get much more standardized enforcement by 
the ag. commissioners, and I think we'll make progress in that 
area. 

And finally, I would simply say to Ms. Clayburgh that 
the point of the task force to look at alternatives is not 
simply a study for paper, but the whole goal is to lead to 
action items . And I think we can make progress . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We will break for five minutes, 
then we will take Ms. Noel Otten. 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll take up Noel Otten, then we 
will take up Kristi Osborn, Concerned Citizens of Dunsmuir. 

MS. OTTEN: Good afternoon, Senator Beverly, Senator 
Roberti, Senator Petris . 

It's indeed an honor to be here, being able to talk 
to you today. 

Just to let you know that this is my second day up 
here, I was up here last week to testify and, as you know, the 
proceedings ran to an extension of time, and so I've given up 
two days of work to be here with you. And I'm not a paid 
environmentalist. I am a member — I'm the President and 
Director of Research for a grassroots groups called Action Now 
in Los Angeles. So, it — my being here today represents an 
extensive amount of effort on my behalf, and I would certainly 



59 

appreciate your extending the courtesy of hearing me out, 
because I have a lot of important information to give to you. 

So, if I run a little bit over time, please bear with 
me. 

I understand your frustration, Senator Petris, and I 
wish we could be here behind you, to work with you more often. 
But as you know, not being paid to do this, it's extremely 
difficult to come up and work with our representatives on these 
important issues . 

But I'm here today because it's a critically 
important issue that we're dealing with, the health and well 
being of future Calif ornians, as well as those of us who reside 
in the state now. 

I'm sure Mr. Strock is probably surprised to see us 
here opposing his confirmation today, since he did have Cal EPA 
officials respond to a list of questions we presented to him at 
a meeting several weeks ago. 

Unfortunately, although the response was not lacking 
in quantity, there was little indication of a vision for 
charting a much-needed new direction in California's 
environmental quality issues to warrant the title bestowed on 
Mr. Strock by Governor Wilson as our environmental advocate. 

We have brought a copy of that response, and we'd be 
glad to make it available for you to scrutinize. I will be 
referring to specific issues related to that response today. 

I would like to speak about two specific issues that 
are central to the problems facing the new Cal EPA. Number one, 



60 

the registration, re-registration, emergency exemption process; 
and number two, the risk assessment, negligible risk standards. 
In so doing, I hope to illustrate to you the need for a 
proactive approach to leadership with a common sense directive 
of prevention as the necessary goal in future decision making. 

The various chemical disaster episodes of recent 
times provide ample evidence of the inability of the 
registration regulatory process to provide the public with any 
kind of reassurance regarding the alleged safety of any toxic 
substance. And so, I just want to say here, and make it very 
clear, that we will not be reassured any longer that these 
substances are safe. They have proven, in more ways then one, 
that they are not, and we are victims of the fact that they are 
not. 

On my way up here, I drove last week. We were crop 
dusted no less than four times on our way up the Central Valley 
I have an acute sinus infection and inner ear infection as a 
result of that. 

My mother was crop dusted while she was gardening up 
'lout of Marysville. She has a couple of walnut acres there. 

My father was damaged and had to be hospitalized and 
bedridden for a week after he helped a neighbor spray Isotox. 

So, there ' re a lot of chemical issues and exposure 
situations that are ongoing out there in California today that 
are very serious . 

In fact, claims as to the safety of toxic substances 
are unwarranted. The potential for abuse of substances, 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

r 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



61 
intentional or accidental, will always exist. Given the fact 
that cancers or genetic effects often begin with the alteration 
of a single molecule, the necessity of preventing exposures to 
toxic substances for which data gaps exist becomes obvious . 

Many of the pesticides now in use, registered before 
1972, do not have the necessary data to support registration. 
Yet we continue to be exposed to these substances, despite the 
state's ignorance as to what adverse health effects might result 
from such exposures . 

Blatant disregard for the registration process occurs 
under the guise of exemptions. When a pesticide is not 
registered for use on a particular crop or in a specific method 
of application, an exemption can be issued to allow its 
application despite the lack of data to support that intended 
use. 

A recent Freedom of Information Act response from the 
U.S. EPA revealed that Cal EPA has been requested by the U.S. 
EPA to submit human study data to support the state's 
registration of malathion bait for use in fruitfly eradication 
programs. In other words, our money will be used to conduct 
human studies on us while the state is spraying us so that they 
can continue to do so in the future without having to apply for 
an emergency exemption. They're seeking Section III 
registration along with the USDA. 

Doesn't this constitute a conflict of interest? 

And I would be glad to make the documentation 
available to you. I have the data call in letter. I have the 



62 
studies that have to be done on humans. And right here, where 
it says, "Company name and address," which is usually what the 
registrant is required to submit for the sale of this product, 
it says, "California Environmental Protection Agency. " 

I don't think this is the best use of taxpayer funds, 
and I think it's in direct conflict of interest, in that Cal EPA 
should be charged at looking to alternatives to aerial spraying. 
If they had — if they have a vested interest in keeping up the 
aerial spraying of malathion on human urban populations, then I 
think something's terribly wrong, terribly wrong. 

I've spent a lot of time this past two years in 
learning as much as possible about how the State of California 
conducts risk assessments and for what purposes. I personally 
attended most of the Malathion Public Health Effects Advisory 
Committee meetings. I gathered documents. I researched; I 
read. Like Mr. Strock, I'm an avid reader also. 

The risk assessment process is triggered during the 
registration process when an adverse health effect is 
demonstrated in lab studies, or when public pressure 
demonstrates the need. 

While touted as being objective, these assessments 
are subject to a host of arbitrarily determined factors which 
greatly influence their outcome. These factors include: 
initial assumptions, and those can include biased and 
predetermined assumptions that are nothing more than fluke 
guesses, honestly; the design of the analysis, there are several 
different ways you can analyze data to get the outcome that you 



63 

want it to give; and the quality and the quantity of data. All 
of these factors play a tremendous role in determining the final 
outcome, shaded by the politics and the values of the authors 
and their superiors . 

The problem is further exacerbated by trying to 
assess the economic feasibility of preserving public health. In 
the term "negligible risk", originally the limit was set at one 
in a million, and now, all of a sudden in recent years, we find 
that that figure has been arbitrarily adjusted to one in every 
one hundred thousand. So, when we're talking in terms of 
negligible risk, let's translate that in human terms. Would you 
want your child to be that one in a hundred thousand, or your 
granddaughter, your child? 

I mean, the negligible risk standard has been 
adjusted downward, while the risk of contacting cancer in this 
country has skyrocketed to one in three . Look at the newspapers 
everyday. You see top CEOs getting prostate cancer, being taken 
out. Whoops, gone. And this is showing up in our older 
generation, younger generations. Over 28 percent increase in 
cancers, leukemias. Is this an acceptable standard for our 
children, of us as human beings? 

It is possible, therefore, to use the risk assessment 
process as a means of justifying policies and protecting 
economic interests instead of public health. The use of highly 
technical language often intimidates many concerned citizens and 
members of the press and politicians, making participation 
difficult for anyone without a Ph.D., thereby facilitating the 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



64 
ability to mislead and confuse the public. 

Risk assessment is ultimately undemocratic as well as 
unscientific. And to give you a prime example of that, you 
might be familiar with the California Department — the 
Department of Health Services, which is now the Office of 
Environmental Health Hazard Assessments — risk assessment 
document on malathion where they have an ocular consensus 
statement stating that concerns regarding ocular toxicity of the 
spraying are unwarranted. 

I have a peer reviewed EPA document saying that they 
think all organophosphates have the potential to cause serious 
ocular damage, signed onto by EPA scientists. 

So, we have a direct conflict here in the information 
that's being given from the scientific community itself. So, 
who's right? 

Add to this inability of the current assessments to 
consider issues like: synergism, what happens when one chemical 
mixes with a lot of different chemicals; biocumulation, what 
happens when we eat fish that are contaminated and go up the 
food chain, or dairy cattle that have been eating malathion- 
covered hay that we're allowing 135 parts per million to go 
onto; the risk of so-called inert ingredients, which are 
sometimes more toxic than the active ingredient that's being 
considered in the risk assessment. 

And one has to wonder upon what information public 
reassurances of health protection are based. 

Furthermore, certain immune and nervous system 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



65 

effects, as well as genetic effects, may not occur until long 
after the inducing chemical has left the body, sometimes well 
after a study has been concluded. And some animals, like rats 
and mice, have enzymes in their blood that help them detoxify 
substances, when humans do not, making them poor models for 
extrapolating potential risks to humans . 

There have been no neurotoxicity testing standards 
included in the risk assessment process. EPA's now drafting 
acute neurotoxicity standards. And people are being 
neurotoxically damaged from exposures. They're being told this 
is in their mind. 

We have direct evidence that it ' s not in your mind at 
all. Increased irritability and insomnia, things that you 
wouldn't ever associate with a chemical exposure being 
perpetuated. Children's attention span deficits. Learning 
difficulties in school. It's unbelievable the importance of 
neurotoxicity, and it hasn't even been considered in the risk 
assessment and is just now coming into consideration, while we 
still endure exposures to neurotoxic chemicals. All 
organophosphates are neurotoxic chemicals. 

Prevention of exposures through adequate training of 
the applicators, of the users, of the farmworkers and bystanders 
is therefore essential to the protection of public health. I 
saw no mention of any of these issues in Mr. Strock's response 
to our concerns . 

If Mr. James Strock cannot understand that a real 
problem exists in the current pesticide regulatory process, we 



66 

are left no choice but to oppose his confirmation. 

If he is willing to acknowledge the need to chart a 

new course for the true protection of public health, then we can 

II 

begin to work together toward that mutual goal . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Ms. Otten. 

MS. OTTEN: Thank you. 

MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman, could I say a couple of 
things? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. 

MR. STROCK: One is with respect to risk assessment, 
there is a great need to make certain that the risk assessment 
work is used properly, and that it is followed by uniform 
protocols across the various areas within environmental 
regulatory agencies. That's one of our highest goals, and we're 
hoping in this very tough budget process to have that office 
fully funded to do that well. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next witness is Kristi Osborn. 

MS. OSBORN: Hi. Thank you for letting me move up 
the list. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. 

MS. OSBORN: I know we're kind of getting tired from 
being here all day. I'll try and make it brief. 

I feel like there's been a little bit of back patting 
going on, and it seems that the Dunsmuir incident is getting a 
lot of press in promotion of this confirmation. 

And I'm from Dunsmuir. The Cantera spill was three 
miles upstream from my house, and I have a little different 



67 
picture of it. 

There was, as I'm sure most of you are aware of, 
there was a derailment at Cantera Loop near Dunsmuir. And 
19,000 gallons of metam sodium was dumped into the river. 
Sterilized — it killed everything in the river, upsetting the 
food chain for many years. Many people became ill. Many people 
are still ill. 

Metam sodium was originally developed for chemical 
warfare, and now they're using it to grow our food. Doesn't 
make sense to me. Yet, it is still not listed as a hazardous 
substance. 

Where was Cal EPA around the time of the spill? They 
were in Dunsmuir, advising residents and vacationers that 
everything was safe. They opened the river to swimming less 
than a week after the incident. Yet there are still, as of last 
December, traces of MITC in the vegetation lining the banks of 
the river. 

We don't know if there are levels that are 
undetectable, and that whether or not those levels can affect 
people. It seems that low concentrations of this chemical can 
affect people because people are still sick. People are still 
experiencing symptoms . 

It seems that an incident of this magnitude should 
have commanded Secretary Strock's full attention, and we did get 
him to come up and visit seven months after the derailment. He 
came. We had a meeting, and he met with some selected 
politicians for about an hour-and-a-half . Then met with 



68 

citizens and some sympathetic city council people in Dunsmuir 
for ten minutes and left. 

It seems that there should more action in an incident 
of this magnitude. There was no evacuation of the area. 

Now, this derailment coincided with the formation of 
California EPA, and it was a golden opportunity to show what the 
organization could do. 

We didn't see that happen. We saw people saying, 
"It's okay, it's okay, it's okay. There's no long-term 
effects . " 

Well, we're nearly a year after the incident. There 
are long-term effects. There are a lot of sick people still. 

Hindsight's 20-20, and hindsight, the California EPA 
has told us over and over again, "Yes, we should have 
evacuated," but that doesn't help people now. There weren't an 
evacuation — there wasn't any kind of evacuation. Why did that 
not happen? 

Where was the information? We had no information for 
weeks and weeks and weeks, and even still there is 
misinformation being circulated about what actually happened, 
and who's responsible for what. 

Cal EPA was a new agency at the time of the incident; 
however, these people were trained. They were from other 
agencies. They knew what they were doing. Yet, we were still 
exposed to this chemical repeatedly. 

There are no safe levels of metam sodium. There's 
been none established. Yet they could tell us it was safe. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



69 

This is the department that we're speaking of here, 
that's coming and telling the residents, "It's okay." 

I urge you to consider the miscarriages, suicides, 
land all the ill people that were exposed to this chemical 
unnecessarily when considering this confirmation. 

Where is Cal EPA now? Are there still detectable 
levels? We don't know. What are they doing right now to 
protect the environment in Dunsmuir, to protect the residents in 
Dunsmuir? Nothing as far as I know. We have not had any visits 
for quite sometime. 

I'd like to urge you to be an example of leadership. 
Cal EPA has potential to do great things, and I really hope that 
there is some leadership that can prevent a disaster like this 
from happening again. 

Thank you. 

MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman, could I please make 
several points? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, please. 

MR. STROCK: The first, despite what was said, I was 
at Dunsmuir before Cal EPA was created. I was up there as soon 
as this occurred. That was not correct. That was my first 
time. 

Seven months later, we had every possible person we 
could who'd be useful to this on both the health and on the law 
enforcement side there immediately. And I think they did a very 
good job under very difficult circumstances. 

And I would also add that also, despite what was 



70 

said, I in fact am going back there in a matter of about two 
weeks, because one thing we want to try to do is not just be 
involved when the environmental assault has occurred, but to be 
back when the different events, when the town is trying to get 
itself back together. 

So, I hope that the Committee will be mindful. I 
think we had a good record under very difficult circumstances 
there, and the public should have confidence in it. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next witness is Bradley Angel, 
Toxic Campaign Director for Greenpeace. 

MR. ANGEL: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
thank you for giving me the opportunity to take a few minutes to 
share some very important information with you that I hope, if 
you have an open mind, will convince you to vote a strenuous no 
on the confirmation of Mr. Strock. 

And it's with great disappointment that I have to say 
that, because I sat here and heard, as you did, some fine words 
said about Mr. Strock. I, like everybody else in the state, had 
high hopes about the California EPA, and I still do. 

This state should know better. We have a legacy of 
poisoned communities in this state, not just due to polluting 
industry, but due to the outright negligence and misdirection of 
prior state agencies and federal regulation regarding toxics in 
our communities: from the Stringfellow acid pits, to the cancer 
cluster of Rosamond; from the children with cancer in McFarland, 
to all the dead people in Casmalia, California. We had hoped 
those days were behind us . 



71 

It was interesting to me to be sitting here and 
listening to most of those in support of Mr. Strock, all from 
these different institutes for business and the environment. 

Well, I want to remind people that this is not — 

we're not here ratifying somebody for the head of the Chamber of 

Commerce. We are ratifying or not ratifying somebody who is 

supposed to provide the vision and leadership to protect 

California's environment. We're talking about life and death 

l 

issues here. And this is not the Chamber of Commerce, and the 

profit motive has to be taken out of our calculations about what 

needs to be done to protect the environment . 

Mr. Peter Weiner identified himself as an attorney, 
and indeed, he's an extremely fine attorney of the highest 
caliber. And he spoke in support of Mr. Strock. 

What he conveniently omitted is, Mr. Weiner is also a 
representative for Dow Chemical, which is — currently has an 
application for a hazardous waste incinerator before Mr. Stock's 
Agency . 

Mr. Weiner said that the Cal EPA is incredibly 
accessible. Well, maybe they're incredibly accessible to the 
polluters of this state, like Dow Chemicals, like the Rhone- 
Poulencs, like the Chem Waste Managements, but I would argue 
that in fact, under Mr. Strock 's tenure for the last year, what 
we have now seen and can document — and I can provide you some 
documents on this — is in all out attempt to gut environmental 
regulation in this state, to push through dangerous polluting 
waste disposal projects, such as hazardous waste incinerators, 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

18 

I! 

19 | 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



72 

and to take action that will have very real impact of limiting 
public review of these projects and public access to the 
projects . 

In California today, there is one gigantic hazardous 
waste incineration operation that's been going on for ten years, 
over the vehement objections over the last few years of 
the public. This is the National Cement's Systech facility in 
Lebec . 

And yes, indeed, I too was surprised to see 
Mr. Strock at the National Cement propaganda meeting a week ago 
Monday, where he sat at the very back of the room and did not 
identify himself and make himself available voluntarily to the 
public . 

But no — no surprise why, because we've been leaked 
by a very conscientious employee of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency a document that tells what the 
state ' s real motive is regarding the National Cement 
incinerator. 

I want to remind you that this is a facility that, 
just a couple years ago, was out of compliance approximately 166 
days in one year. This is a company that has exceeded its 
emission levels for heavy metals, dioxins and f urans . This is a 
company who the state last year renewed their permit without a 
public hearing. There has not been an environmental impact 
report . 

This is a facility who Mr. Strock 's aide, Val Siebal, 
assured not only myself but people from the community that a 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

17 

j 

18 
19 
20 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



73 
decision on an environmental impact report would be made last 
October. Well, guess what? We were never gotten back to [sic]. 

Then we pressed it, "Well, we'll tell you by 
January." Well, guess what? There's still no decision. 
They're stalling. 

We have a document here, an internal EPA memo, U.S. 
EPA memo. The landowner for the National Cement facility, where 
it's located is Tejon Ranch. Because of their serious concerns 
about the dismal operations of this incinerator operation, they 
didn't want to sign the new Part B RCRA permit application. 

The state, in the words — and I will quote you — of 
the United States EPA, quote/unquote: 

"... has indicated that they ..." 
the state, 

"are willing to entertain any option 

that will keep the facility in 

operation. " 
And it goes on to say, and I quote: 

"The state does not want to lost the 

capacity or the revenue for the 

facility fees . " 
And it goes on to say, and I quote: 

"The state ..." 



and I quote, 



"The state is willing to stretch the 
regulations in order to keep 
National in operation." 



74 

This is a disgrace. This is using my tax dollars, 
and yours, to try — what they were trying to do is get the EPA 
to go along with their plan to approve the Part B RCRA 
application without the legal requirement that ' s etched in stone 
that the landowner sign a permit. 

That is not the responsible role, I would argue, and 
I would offer to you, for the California EPA. 

At the end of last Monday's meeting in Lancaster, a 
reporter for the L.A. Times asked Mr. Strock about this. 
Mr. Strock admitted that it was a very regrettable and an 
improper for the state to be doing that, and that it didn't 
reflect the state's position. I was very glad to hear that. 

Mr. Strock shocked me when I read in print in the 
L.A. Times last week, that state Health officials have eased 
their backing for incineration, now perceiving it as a limited 
rather than potential widespread remedy. I wish that was true. 

Mr. Strock, I'd like to maybe refresh your memory 
with this internal state Cal EPA memo that was also leaked to us 
by a concerned employee of yours. I'll give you a copy. 

And in this, which we've been waiting for the 
appropriate time to bring to you responsible Legislators' 
attention, like yourselves, this memo documents the Cal EPA 
secret plan to push through incinerators. This document states 
that, and I quote: 

"In recent years, several 
incineration projects were proposed. 
However, at this time only two 



75 

remain in the permitting process 

ii 

• • • 

And they're referring to facilities proposed in Martinez and 
Kettleman City. 

"... both facing serious 
challenges. " 

They explore — the Cal EPA explores the options, and they say, 
number one, improve the acceptability of incinerators. That 
would be pretty hard, because we know the industry's track 
record . 

It says, number two, seek legislation which would 
limit the challenges to projects which would meet California's 
standards . 

And it says, number three, explore having the State 
of California play a more active role in the siting and 
development of incinerating projects, including giving more tax 
money to incinerator companies — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Angel, what you're saying is 
very important, and I don't want to — 

MR. ANGEL: I'll wrap it up. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Well, no, we're going to have to 
break for caucus . 

MR. ANGEL: Could I finish my comments in one minute? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll let you finish your 
comments, then we're going to break and come back again. 

MR. ANGEL: That's fine. I'm near wrapping up. I 
appreciate it. 



76 

But they also — the Cal EPA's advocating siting 
assistance, site acquisition, and ownership of these types of 
projects. Now, which one is it? Which one is it? Is it the 
public comments made to the L.A. Times , or is it these secret 
government memos that were fortunately leaked by responsible 
government employees? 

MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman, would I — 

MR. ANGEL: Could I finish? I'm almost done. 

Lastly, Mr. Strock's agency is right now embarking on 
an all-out effort for one-stop permits and permit streamlining. 
What that will do is limit public review. It will limit public 
hearings. It will limit public access to the process, 
particularly when in California waste disposal projects don't go 
into affluent White communities, but are virtually always 
proposed in communities of color, and often Spanish-speaking 
communities, like the Vernon project, like the Kettleman 
project. We are talking about the state pursuing practices 
which will put them in bed with environmental racism. 

We call for accountability. We call for true 
nonbiased decision making. 

And I think the documents that we've now got, I'd 
like to make them available to you, are very troubling. I wish 
we didn't have them, but we do. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Strock. 

MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman, I realize you want to go 
into caucus . 

Would I have a chance to completely respond when you 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



77 
return, if I might, or is it better now? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. 

MR. STROCK: There are a great number of issues here 
that I'd like to correct. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We have to go into caucus, and 
we'll come back and you'll be able to respond at that point. 

MR. STROCK: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We are now in recess until call of 
the Chair. 

[Thereupon a recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Senate Rules Committee will 
come to order. 

We had concluded, before we recessed, with Mr. 
Bradley Angel's testimony, Toxic Campaign Director for 
Greenpeace . 

Mr. Strock, would you like to respond? 

MR. STROCK: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

If I might make several points about Mr. Angel's 
testimony. First, with respect to the specific involvement at 
National Cement, I had received a great number of letters, and 
indeed, very carefully go through these letters and questions we 
get, and I became very concerned about certain things we saw in 
that process of consideration there with respect to that 
incinerator. 

As a result of that, we've taken a number of steps. 
One is to make an adjustment in the reorganization for the 
Toxics Program, to make certain that people who are involved in 



78 

advocating technologies are kept separate from the permitting 
decision process in a much clearer way than is now the case. 

The individual that wrote the letter that Mr. Angel 
referred to, and I share his reaction to that letter, has been 
recused from any further involvement in this matter. 

Further, the position the Department is taking with 
respect to the U.S. EPA regulation Mr. Angel referred to has 
been made clear, that we want nothing more than for U.S. EPA to 
enforce the regulation they have, period. Nothing more to it 
than that . 

If I might add a couple other things, and I'll resist 
the temptation to try to go through every single point — he's 
very eloquent — several points, though. 

One is, I'll just state, to give you an idea of where 
things — what things look like, when I say that one of the key 
applicants for an incinerator in this state right now, Rhone- 
Poulenc, has gone publicly on the record fighting our efforts to 
take over authorization of the federal RCRA program because they 
do not think they will get enough support from our office. And 
that's what they want. They have the exact opposite goal. 

The fact is, we're not going to do anything in either 
case, except the right thing. But I think it's important to 
bear in mind so no one misinterprets how we're viewed by people 
on that side^ of things. 

I'd also like to say briefly with respect to the 
specific document that Mr. Angel referred to, and this is — I 
believe you have one for the record. I don't recall this, but 



g 



79 

it appears accurate. I'd like to explain what it is, because 
it's not at all what Mr. Angel said. 

Last year, and I do this still a great deal, I will 
o to the various parts within Cal EPA and ask them to come up 
with ideas . Some are good and some are bad . Some haven ' t 
received light of day again because they're not good, and that's 
the case this one fell into. There was no follow-up whatsoever 
with this. 

And I'd like to make clear that what I said last week 
to the Los Anaeles Times was the first statement I have made 
about incineration, and that is our — that's certainly my view. 

As you know, Mr. Robert i, because you're a leader in 
this area, incineration has got to be a tool of last resort. 
First, the effort has to be made to achieve prevention, and I 
think we're making some improvements there. Second, 
minimization. Third, recycling. Treatment if necessary. But 
disposal, whether it's land-based or incineration, has to be the 
last — the last thing we would do. And that is certainly how 
we approach this . 

And I just want to say in closing on this that we 
want to make every single effort to do this with the public 
health as first consideration. 

And one truly final thing, if I might, I can't 
resist. He made the comment about his concern about the Cal EPA 
trying to work on economic issues as well as environmental. 

If I could put that in the perspective of where I see 
it from on two issues, one is with respect to permitting reform. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



80 

As you're well aware, leaders here, yourself and others, have 
put together the highest environmental standards in the world 
for most activities. Yet the permitting process, which is only 
a goal to get to those standards, is often so difficult, that 
unless you can afford a lawyer who makes more money than most 
people look at buying for help, or unless you just are totally 
schooled in this process, you frankly can't get a straight 
answer. There's got to be ways to simplify that, and I think we 
can. 

But we would seek your help, because if you have 
ideas, I'd really like to see them and work together on it, 
because there's no secrets here at all. We're trying to do 
something better and open. 

Finally, I really hope people will consider what's 
happening across the whole world right now on this question of 
environment and the economy. Just last week, it was quite a 
breakthrough that at the Rio Conference, it was accepted for the 
first time, as part of the dialogue, that environment and 
economy truly do go hand-in-hand, looking toward the future. 

One part that particularly intrigued me was that 
Japan made the announcement that over the next five years, they 
would commit to more than $7 billion in aid for environmental - 
related development. And the fact is, a big part of what 
they're doing is developing markets for new technologies that 
protect the environment but also have economic benefits for 
Japan . 

California has been the lead in that area, and as 



26 

27 
28 



81 

you're well aware, with the loss of other types of jobs, we 
would hope to assist in developing clean industry to that 
extent . 

Thank you for letting me talk at some length. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

MR. ANGEL: If I could take one minute. 

We would look forward — I mean, we do look forward 
to working with the Cal EPA, rather maybe the Director of that, 
whether it be Mr. Strock of somebody else. We will always 
insist on absolute protection of the health of our communities. 
We will always insist on full participation of the public. 

The challenge is going to be, in Martinez, 
California, where the City of Martinez has declared the process 
dead, will the state respect that process, and also consider it 
dead, or will you negotiate with Rhone-Poulenc behind the door? 

In Kettleman City, I want to know how come the state 
has refused to translate their permit documents into the 
language the people of that community understand. That is 
public participation. 

In Pittsburg, you're going to hear a plea from people 
form that community for another public hearing, because a lot of 
people, it turns out, thousands, had no idea about the Dow 
incinerator proposal. 

You know, that's the type of thing we were not 
seeing. 

And it troubled me also, and the last thing I'll say 
is that when you went to Dunsmuir, I was also in Dunsmuir just 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



82 

days after the spill at the request of people. And it was 
interesting that Kristi Osborn didn't know you were there. I 
met with Kristi and a lot of other people who were feeling sick 
at the time, and I shared their shock and utter incredulousness 
at — when the Cal EPA was silent, when business interests 
pressured the various government agencies to open that river for 
swimming and pretending that the problem was away. 

And I hope that we've all learned something, and will 
not allow that to happen again. 

MR. STROCK: If I might say one more thing, at the 
risk of appearing to be "Family Feud". 

MR. ANGEL: That was a response, but go ahead. 

MR. STROCK: You and I have corresponded on this, and 
I just frankly — at length, and I — 

MR. ANGEL: That's right. You called my concerns 
"nonsense. " 

MR. STROCK: No, "nonsense on stilts." 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. STROCK: It was meant to emphasize — and I mean 
to be — because I just really — it was not correct, and I just 
disagreed firmly on this, and I want to be very clear for the 
record. 

And that's all I'll say. 

MR. ANGEL: And we considered the behavior of the 
various government agencies outright irresponsible, and we will 
continue to pressure all the agencies to protect the public 
health and environment, which we're not seeing. 



83 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next witness is Dr. Garry 
Flint, Citizens for a Healthy Ukiah. 

DR. FLINT: I think I've rewritten my comments three 
or four times . 

Thank you for allowing me to say a few words here. 

I'm a psychologist in Ukiah, and I've lived there for 
20 years. 

I want to testify in opposition to the confirmation 
of Mr. Strock as Secretary of the Cal EPA. 

He's been cited of having great feelings for the 
government and industry, and I read through his papers for his 
proposal to streamline the permit process, and I was really 
concerned about permit agreements that would be able to be made 
in one area, and then to extend to other areas where the, 
perhaps, citizens in that community have different needs, or 
geography, or conditions to deal with. 

That seems to be an opportunity to disallow public 
input . 

The pay for facilitating, speeding up documents, 

that's a real — although he addresses that some — that's a 

I 

real opportunity for clouding of judgment in making decisions 
about what's good for the public. That a person who receives 
money to speed a process is almost on a bandwagon, and that's a 
dangerous process. 

Administrative issuance of permits, I can envision 
administrative variances given, in addition to administrative 



84 

permits. Once variances are given, or permits for things are 
given, it's — it takes a lot of public uproar to make changes. 

I worry that that procedure, if enacted, is going to 
again rip the public off of having input into the permitting 
process. 

His reorganizational proposal doesn't address or 
facilitate community input. I live in a small town. It's 
Ukiah, the home of Masonite. It's been there since 1950, and 
it's been polluting since 1950. 

They, for years, have been consistently over the — 
exceeded the limits of pollution and recently obtained a 
variance to continue polluting at high levels. They're pampered 
by the County Supervisors, and for the last three years, they've 
been late on a hot spot document that they ' re supposed to 
prepare, and it's not going to be ready until next year. 
They've been late on this document, and it — and they aren't 
being fined for it. 

In the '70s, they were given a permit to burn 900,000 
gallons of number 6 residual oil per year. In 1991, they burned 
3.8 million gallons of residual oil. This was — they had 
consistently been burning around an average of slightly over 3 
million gallons a year. 

Analyzing the 1991 usage, they put out 57,000 pounds 
of various metals. These metals that go into the atmosphere, I 
assume, and filter down on to the ground, the streets, and the 
water, and we all get to deal with that. 

They have a history of serious chemical and fuel 



85 
spills at the plant. The last reported were, I believe, in 
1989. 

The enforcement for clean-up — for cleaning up these 
spills is lax. They don't move any dirt out there. They found 
six inches of diesel fuel in a test well that's less than 2,000 
yards from a city well. The requirement was to keep testing, 
and eventually the well stopped showing diesel fuel. 

They use a chemical waste — they have a chemical 
waste sludge that's taken from settling ponds that's the remains 
of toxic chemicals that are washed off of molds and equipment. 
This sludge is spread on county roads. It's marketed as feed 
supplement for cattle and poultry in the Sacramento Valley. You 
probably eat this — this meat. 

It's also burned for fuel in the Masonite boilers. 
They burn it on wood chips . 

As far as I know, chemical contents of this sludge is 
not monitored by any agency. We haven't found any analysis of 
this sludge. They call it Masonex. 

About two-and-a-half years ago, Masonite started a 
molded door line. In 1987, the used 57,000 pounds of linseed 
oil a year. Last year they used 2.5 million pounds, in 1991. 
Linseed oil breaks down to form — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You have 30 seconds. 

DR. FLINT: — aldehydes. And there ' re a lot of 
people sick in Ukiah with serious illnesses. A lot of cases of 
lymphoma, which is atypical. 

What we have in Ukiah is a good-ol ' -boy town with the 



86 

supervisors, the fire departments, the city officials, and 
county employees all protect Masonite because we're held hostage 
for 400 jobs there. 

What we need is a strong protection agency that will 
step in and make companies in little town like this accountable 
for their pollution, and we don't have that. And we haven't had 
that in the last year or in the last 20 years. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

DR. FLINT: Thank you. 

MR. STROCK: Sir, may I just put one thing on the 
record on this. 

For the doctor, if I could possibly — if we could 
trade cards after, because if I do have the good fortune to be 
approved, I'd like to follow-up with you. 

We heard about this last week, and we'd heard about 
the air problems over the past several months . And our head of 
enforcement is right now meeting with people on this . 

Again, I prefer just to follow-up with you, if I 
might, further. 

DR. FLINT: Okay, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Lyle Talbot, Health Risk 
Assessments. 

MR. TALBOT: Thank you, Committee Members. 

Lyle Talbot, 50 years in California, and the first 
time in this building. Wonderful feeling. 

I'm also from the Antelope Valley, where we have the 
home of the only toxic incinerator that makes cement as a side 



87 

business, and home of the Antelope Valley winds that, if you've 
ever traveled through that area, you know about those winds. 
The combination of a toxic incinerator and those horrendous 
winds create a lot of problems that start in Kern County and 
come into the Antelope Valley, the Los Angeles County portions. 

I'm here to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Strock. 

And behind me, this gentleman will show you a map 
that was prepared by the Middlehauser Corporation in conjunction 
with this health risk assessment. The little items — the title 
of the map is, "Sensitive Receptors". They're represented by 
those dots and radial lines off to the left. They have their 
appropriate numbers keyed down here, on the bottom right-hand 
corner of the map. But it's pretty hard to tell one of those 
dots from the other when you're here in Sacramento. 

A sensitive receptor, according to definition, if a 
person between the ages of zero and seven, or a senior citizen. 
Now, if you're eight years old, I guess you're an adult, because 
they do worry about people from zero to seven in day care 
schools and elementary schools. 

Well, we — in their haste to put together this 
theoretical math modeling document which shows no contact with 
actual receptors downwind, we would like to show you some 
receptors who are actually human beings and have signed their 
name to a paper. They're not just a dot on the map. 

These people have complained for years about the 
burning of toxic waste out there, and they're the closest actual 
receptors; they're not dots on a map. And we could not get 



88 

anybody in state government to accept these surveys and 
complaints from people. Well, they're here now if you'd like to 
look at them. 

In their haste to put together this theoretical math 
modeling document, which shows no contact with the people, as I 
said, Middlehauser put wrong directional bearings to these 
theoretical sensitive receptors. They stated their location in 
the book as being northeast from the plant, but their actual 
locations are northwest from the plant, give or take 90 or 180 
degrees . 

Now, we wonder what other flaws are present in this 
document when they cannot plot correctly on the map and give 
directions in this text. I don't think they've paid a lot of 
attention to the make-up of it. 

We have a problem with that kind of shoddy work, so 
typical in this document. We like to assign faces to those 
dots, like these faces of kindergartners . This was taken in 
1982. They're not Mojave ground squirrels, and they're not 
spotted owls, but they're real children's pictures, taken in the 
year '82, when DHS issued the permit for this toxic incinerator 
based on this negative declaration. It appeared in the 
newspaper in another city, in another county, just this size. 
It was in the Bakersfield Californian . 

There was no notice to the receptors downwind, and a 
picture's worth a thousand words, so, may I have the pictures, 
please. 

Excuse me, these are pictures, aerial views, and 



89 

there's the cement plant just above that blue line. Prevailing 
winds blow from Kern County into Los Angeles County. 

Now, Kern County issues the permit, the air quality 
permit for this operation. But we feel the effects over in 
Supervisor Antonovich's Fifth District in Los Angeles County, 
and he has written several letters to the state about this 
issue. 

The blue line to the left of the photo are the 
California Aqueduct that pass one-and-a-half miles from the 
plant itself, so any emissions from the plant are bound to fall 
into those open canals . 

Just as a matter of orientation, here's a blowup of 
the aerial shop of the cement plant, showing the bag house. The 
bag house does not have a stack, does not have a scrubber. This 
was an old cement plant that has been in operation for 15 years, 
and they introduced burning of toxic waste based on this 
negative declaration. And it is not a state-of-the-art 
incinerator. We wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if it 
had all the modern technologies that's available. 

And that's where 74 percent of all of California's 
toxic waste is burned. 

It took us — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Talbot, you have 30 more 
second. 

MR. TALBOT: It took us a few years to get organized, 
but we're here today to make our stand. 

In summary, we'd like to see California EPA a 



90 

California EPA who's out there protecting us instead of sleeping 
with our enemy. 

And I'd like to leave with the Committee a letter 
[from the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, sent to 
tor. Jim Strock. I'm not sure how far it's been circulated above 
his office. We'd like the Committee Members to look at it, and 
where they actually say there it ' s the law that you must have an 
environmental impact report on a plant like this . 

Thank you for your time, sir. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: There seems to be an awful lot of 
concern about what has been happening in the Antelope Valley and 
Rosamond area. I think people are just genuinely, genuinely 
concerned about their health. 

Not to say the other areas that have been here aren't 
equally concerned, but it just seems like this is an especially 
derelict area. 

MR. TALBOT: You know, could I add one more thing? 

The state gets federal money to promote the toxic 
waste business as they conduct their business. 

If we could use some of that federal money, say, a 
small percentage, 5-10 percent each year, ands let's put that as 
incentive money to industry to show us programs where they 
reduce the amount that has to be incinerated, and if you dangle 
some bucks out in front of that industry, I believe they will 
[reply and respond with constructive methods of reduction. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: thank you. 

MR. STROCK: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add, 



91 
I have been following carefully, reading the statements of 
Mr. Talbot. I've read the letter that you referred to that just 
came. 

Again, we've taken those steps I mentioned on the 
recusal, and so forth, to make sure the decision process does 
not have the quite legitimate doubts, I think, that have been 
raised. 

And the immediate issue now is a precedent setting 
one across all the programs, is whether or not an EIR is 
required. And we're working on that at two levels. One is on 
the technical determination being made as to whether or not the 
health risk assessment Mr. Talbot referred to would lead you to 
that, or second, does the law require one in any event. 

We intend, and this is the first I've committed on 
this because I was not present at those prior commitments, but 
our expectation is to — to have that by this autumn, when there 
is a full decision on it. 

MR. TALBOT: That's about a year after the first 
promise we had on that decision, sir. 

MR. STROCK: I've got to say that you'll have to 
wait. 

I hope you'll see, I am not defending. In fact, the 
reason I got involved so directly is because it ' s clear there 
are some problems in how it's been done, that I take your point. 
And I'm trying to get involved now to improve it, and also to 
change the process so this doesn't happen against in terms of 
people not having full confidence that the public health is the 



14 



15 



16 



17 



18 



22 



23 



24 



25 



26 



27 



28 



92 
first concern of a permit. If that is shaken, that cuts to the 
core of the program. 

So, that's why I'm focused so hard in trying to 
listen and respond. 

MR. TALBOT: Well, whoever is confirmed in this post, 
we certainly hope that they respond in that way. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Talbot. 

MR. TALBOT: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Next is Mr. Don Of field. 

MR. OFFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee 
Members . 

Your stamina is a tribute to your belief in the 
system, and I appreciate the time to speak to you. 

I'm here on behalf of a citizen organization called 
CAPIT, Citizens Against Pollution and Industrial Toxics. It's 
an off-the-cuff group of people that was put together actually 
several weeks ago as a response to the Dow incinerator project, 
which has been in the works with the California EPA and the 
federal EPA for quite some time. 

I don't know if many people know where Pittsburg is. 
It's in the Delta, situated between Concord and Antioch, cities 
of about 50,000, primarily minority citizens. 

This incinerator is not only going to affect 
Pittsburg by burning 14 million pounds of toxic waste a year, 
but it's going to affect a very primarily and dominantly White 
middle-class community of Antioch due to the prevailing winds. 
These two communities are coming together in opposition, 



93 

obviously, to the incinerator. 

I'd also like to say that I'm not an 
environmentalist. I'm not a toxicologist . 

I'm a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement 
Administration. I spent the last eight years of my life running 
around the State of California, and actually all over the 
country/ fighting people who pour sludge from the manufacture of 
illicit chemical substances, like methamphetamines, into our 
lakes, into our sewer systems, into our streams. 

And I think you can only imagine that, while I'm out 
there supposedly defending the public, I come back to a 
community and wonder who's there to defend me. I'm assuming 
that it's going to be Mr. Strock. 

I ask you tonight, that if you're going to confirm 
Mr. Strock, that you ask yourself one thing. Is he the person 
that you would want to represent you if you had a toxic waste 
incinerator proposed for your community? 

I attended all the meetings . I heard about all the 
risk assessments. I heard about all the things that they said 
were acceptable to our communities . 

We don't agree with that. And in fact, Mr. Strock 's 
comments tonight that, you know, incineration is the last 
resort, that the public health is a major concern, has not been 
borne out by the process that was taking place in order to get 
this permit through. 

The citizens of Antioch and Pittsburg are new 
citizens. That area has seen major growth in the last couple of 



94 

years, and a result of that, the majority of the people there do 
not know that this thing is going to go in, or is slated to go 
in. 

What I'm asking tonight is, if Mr. Strock is 
confirmed, that he give us the opportunity to get an extension, 
a period of time in which we can make our people more aware of 
the fact that this is going in. 

If you grant us that, then I think we have a viable 
opportunity to let people know what ' s occurring there . And most 
importantly, if they have any opposition, to state that 
opposition. If in effect there isn't any opposition, then I say 
that, you know, Dow should go ahead and do what they have to, 
because we don't care enough. 

But at this point, I don't think under the direction 
of yourself or whoever the California EPA was directed under — 
and I don't only hold you responsible, or your organization, 
but the federal government — I don't think we've been made 
aware . I don ' t think we ' ve had enough opportunity . That ' s what 
I'm here for tonight. 

That's all I have, and I appreciate your time. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

MR. STROCK: If I might, I just don't know enough 
about the facts of that case to respond off the cuff, to make in 
effect a legal suggestion to the Toxics Department. 

I could commit to look into it quickly and get back 
to you, but again, I just don't have the fact at my hands enough 
that I could feel comfortable. 



95 

MR. OFFIELD: And we appreciate that. 

I would just bring up one other point, that during 
this process, we did get a 30-day extension from your 
department, and we're very appreciative of that, because we did 
amass enough support to get that. 

But what I would say to you is, that your people also 
intimated to the fact it was a done deal. And that even though 
we had the opportunity to respond, that it pretty much was going 
,to go through. 

And I think you can only imagine that that was a very 
detrimental thing to us . 

I don't think that that's correct, and I would hope 
that you would agree with me. 

MR. STROCK: Well, I would totally agree, and I would 
like to follow-up with you on that as well, because that 
presents a lot of other issues we're going to have to follow up 
on, because the process cannot be flawed in that way. 

MR. OFFIELD: Right. I appreciate it, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Finally we have witnesses from the 
Committee for a Safe Environment, Ralph Sattler and Cathy I vers . 

I take it you want to testify together, or is there 
just one of you? 

MS. IVERS: Separately. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's fine, separately. I just 
had you here together, so I assumed you wanted to testify. No, 
come separately, fine. 

Mr. Sattler. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



96 
MR. SATTLER: Thank you this opportunity to speak 

before you today. My name is Ralph Sattler, and I'm a resident 

of Martinez, and I'm here today to voice my opposition to the 

confirmation of James Strock. 

I am one of many members of our community who oppose 

the permitting of the hazardous waste incinerator which would 

operate within 500 feet of the Benecia Bridge and on the banks 

I 

jlof the Carquinez Straits. 

The head of Cal EPA must be a person who understands 
and is dedicated to the purpose and function of this department. 
That purpose is the protection of the health and safety of the 
citizens of California and our environment. All actions taken 
by Cal EPA must be based upon this doctrine. 

In response to some of the things that you've already 
answered, I'm going to change part of what I had down here, but 
I would like to first comment about the Dow — proposed Dow 
Chemical incinerator. According to a recent article in the 
Contra Costa Times . there has been an extension of approximately 
30 days for the public to comment. However, in the same 
article, it also stated that they, both the federal and 
California EPA, intend to issue the approval for the permit. 

This is a totally biased statement. There is — 
there's no point in having public comment if you're not going to 
take the comments and read them, and to use that in the 
evaluation of your decision. 

I have a great deal of concern from what I've seen on 
the document for the streamlining of the permitting — of the 



97 

permits. And that basically eliminates the public from the 
permitting process by a recommendation for the administratively 
issued permits by Cal EPA. This is a trend that seems to be in 
line with what's going on with the federal government, as a 
committee headed by our nation's champion speller recommended 
that industry no longer needs to inform the public when they 
exceed their pollution standards. 

This does not give the protection to the public. 
This recommendation, by the way, was approved by President Bush, 
and they no longer are required in the regulations to tell us 
when they exceed their standards . 

The draft EIR for Rhone-Poulenc identified there 
would be an increased cancer risk of one additional person if 
the incinerator permit is granted. 

I believe the current risk of cancer in Contra Costa 
County is 466 per million. This risk of killing one more person 
is not acceptable. Is anyone willing to offer themselves or a 
member of their family so that industry can burn their toxic 
waste? 

Yet the draft proposal of Cal EPA states that they — 
California should take and explore the state taking a more 
active role. And I emphasize the word "more" here. It implies 
that the role already exists on the part of the state in the 
siting of incineration projects. 

Why is that? How does that comply with the purpose 
of the California Environmental Protection Agency? 

That's all I have to say. 



8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



98 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. STROCK: If I could just briefly, Mr. Chairman, 
just reiterate that the draft permit streamlining and reform 
proposal has been out for comment. We are extending the time 
for people to get involved in work groups, task forces, so that 
we can have something that the Legislature and people will want 
to try to do. It's a very open process. 

I really ask people to please, if you'd be so kind, 
in addition to identifying areas that you think need to be 
improved, if you could send in suggestions to us as to how we 
can improve it, because I think most people agree, it needs to 
be better. But we need help as to how to do it. 

MR. SATTLER: If I may, I'd like to make a couple 
other comments . 

I'm concerned with the comments that I've heard about 
the accessibility of the groups of other than industry to your 
department, and the inability to get responses from your 
department . 

I'm also concerned, being an opponent of the Rhone- 
Poulenc incinerator, with the potential action that the state 
may take, whether it be above or below board, and any attempt to 
change the city's role as the lead agency in that permitting 
process and thereby eliminate the public participation in that 

process. 

i 

I'd like to know what assurances that we're going to 
have from you, should you be confirmed, that this won't happen. 
MR. STROCK: Well, two things. 



2 
3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 



99 

First of all, your first point was with respect to 
accessibility. I have — I can't stress enough how hard I work 
to be accessible to people all the time in our whole office, 
whether it's letters, meetings. One can never do every single 
thing in a given day, but we try. And I really don't know how 
to respond to that, except I can't imagine how one could do 
[more, really, on that. And we're going to keep doing that, too, 
and keep trying to do it better . But I think it ' s been good . 

With respect to the Rhone-Poulenc issue and the lead 
determination, I believe that lies with the Governor's Office of 
Planning and Research, and we'll work with them on it. 

But again, anything on that, too, would be a very 
open public process. 

MR. SATTLER: Some of things that have been 
mentioned today have been where there has been indications that 
the position taken by Cal EPA has not been in conjunction with 
the best interests of the public or the community. And that's 
one of the reasons for the questions and concern. 

MR. STROCK: I hope we could earn your confidence. 

MR. SATTLER: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Cathy I vers , Communities for a 
Safe Environment. And she will be followed by Stormy Williams, 
South Kern Residents Against Pollution, and that will be our 
last witness. 

MS. IVERS: Hi. My name is Cathy I vers . 

I'm not a scientist. I'm not an attorney. I'm not a 
doctor or government official or politician. 



23 



24 



25 



26 



27 



28 



100 

I'm a wife, a mother. I'm a student, and I'm 
spokesperson for Communities for a Safe Environment, and we 
represent a group of over 4,000 people in the Bay Area. We were 
formed primarily in opposition to the Rhone-Poulenc hazardous 
waste incinerator. 

Articles in the newspaper and statements in the Cal 
EPA draft action plan indicates the state's considerable 
interest in the siting of commercial hazardous waste 
incinerators . 

Rhone-Poulenc, a French-owned company, is attempting 
to obtain a permit to burn 142,000 tons of hazardous waste per 
year in a proposed commercial toxic incinerator. The location 
is approximately 500 feet from the Benecia-Martinez Bridge, a 
major artery in the Bay Area. There is overwhelming public 
opposition to the incinerator. 

The draft EIR states that there will be an increase 
in cancer risk, and in case of a major catastrophe, there is no 
way to evacuate the area. It's in the middle of a half a 
million people radius, 500,000 people. 

And the waste is not all generated in Martinez. It's 
going to have to get there. Martinez will become the hub in the 
Bay Area. This material will be — they gave us no radius from 
which the waste would not come. It could conceivably come from 
out of this country, and considering that Rhone-Poulenc is, you 
|lknow, a French-owned company, that is not too far fetched. 

Rhone-Poulenc has recently attempted to have the 
state replace the City of Martinez as the lead agency in the 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



101 

permitting process. The state has responded that they do not 
have the authority to remove Martinez as the lead agency, and 
that was the right thing to do. But they are willing to mediate 
the differences between the City and Rhone-Poulenc . Should this 
become the case, I'd like to ask Mr. Strock to answer the 
following questions. 

What would be the role of Cal EPA? Would Cal EPA 
attempt to force or pressure the City into accepting a bias in 
favor of incineration, circumventing public participation? 

And I have two more questions after that. 

MR. STROCK: May I respond? 

Just to restate again succinctly, we do not have a 
bias toward incineration. I cannot stress that enough, and I 
would stand on my earlier answer on that, but I would just 
stress that repeatedly if need be. 

MS. IVERS: Thank you for repeating that. 

Since Cal EPA seems to have a biased attitude in 
favor of permitting incinerators, and an interest in 
streamlining the permit process, would Cal EPA attempt to 
influence the changing of a lead agency to a more preferred lead 
agency with the broadest regulatory authority for the project? 

In other words, would you take it away from local 
control and give it to another agency that might have less 
vested interest in the local issue? 

MR. STROCK: No, we would have — no. 

MS. IVERS: Will you categorically — then, will you 
state categorically that neither you or your department will 



102 

■ 

make any attempt to recommend or influence the Office of 
Planning and Research, or any other agency that might be 
approached by Rhone-Poulenc for approval of their proposal? 

MR. STROCK: No, I think the issue had to do with — 
the approach was concerning, I believe, the City and its status 
changing with respect to the EIR process, and would we help 
mediate that. 

And I wouldn't think that would necessarily be a bad 
thing to do. That doesn't assume any kind of bias at all. 

If there were bias, it would be a bad thing, but 
there ' s not . 

MS. IVERS: Okay, we're just very, very concerned 
that Rhone-Poulenc may attempt an end run around the Tanner 
process and the CEQA process, and the way that they're already 
moving along. And we would just like assurances from your 
department that public participation will not be cut, 
eliminated, or discouraged from the siting of commercial 
hazardous waste incinerators in California, now or in the 
future . 

MR. STROCK: No, we will definitely follow, as in all 
cases, strictly follow the law and the spirit of it. 

And I would stress, please bear in mind that if the 
Tanner process is kicked in in a situation, the Governor has 
delegated me as the point of appeal, so that I do not get 
involved in the beginning of these, so that I won't have the 
knowledge. And that's something, though, that all sides should 
want to have. I cannot prejudge. 



103 

But you do know, and I'd want to stress again, there 
is no bias toward incineration whatsoever. Indeed, it is the 
least preferred remedy, as I stated earlier. 

MS. IVERS: Has the state been talking with Rohne- 
Poulenc about proposed issuance of permits as administrative 
permits? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Normally, we have been pretty lax, 
but we normally ask questions through the Chair. 

MS. IVERS: You don't want the — I'm sorry. I don't 
know the procedure. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's all right. I've been 
allowing it to happen. 

MS. IVERS: Actually, this was my last question. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. IVERS: Should I go back to civic class? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You can have your last question. 

MS . IVERS : Thanks . 

Has the state been talking with Rhone-Poulenc about 
the proposed issuance of permits as administrative permits by 
the state? In other words, would you just issue them 
administratively, or would you always include the public? 

MR. STROCK: No, no. 

I think there's two things being confused here, if I 
might, but I understand how it could come up. 

There is discussion in the permitting — permitting 
reform draft that would look at increasing the areas for 
administrative permit, kind of across the board in different 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



104 

places. It often happens now. But that would be — have 
nothing — number one, it would be purely prospective, any 
bhange, and would have to be passed by the Legislature. And 
that's the ultimate in public comment. 

And number two, this process is one everyone agrees 
has to have extensive public comment. I can't imagine any case, 
but even — no matter what happens in the future, the law is 
very clear, there will be extensive public comment. 

MS. I VERS: Okay, thank you very much for your time. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Our last witness is Stormy 
Williams, Southern Kern Residents Against Pollution. 

MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I guess it's sort of an omen 
I'm last. I've come a long way today. I was here last week 
also. 

I'm here representing Southern Kern Residents Against 

Pollution, and also a group of fed-up desert environmentalists 

called the Desert Rebellion. 

I'm here from Rosamond, the site of California's 
i 
worst childhood cancer cluster. We have lost seven out of nine 

afflicted children. 

We * re in the area in the desert where it ' s — we have 

California's only pay to burn toxic incinerator on top of our 24 

toxic sites in Rosamond and South Mojave. These toxic sites 

never started out to be permitted toxic businesses. They were 

regular businesses that, through no regulation by Kern County 

and the state, became, you know, run amok businesses and toxic 

sites. We have all the way from smelters to people open burning 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



105 
freight cars, and people open burning wire, things like that. 

All of the studies done on our deceased children 
center around toxics. Over half of our children that are dead 
died of a rare brain stem cancer. You would not expect to find 
one of these cancer cases in a town our size. 

It is a very slow process, getting our 24 sites 
cleaned up. Part of it is due to a lack of money; part of it is 
due to a lack of coordination and motivation. 

We were quite pleased to hear the Cal EPA was being 
formed, because we were quite disgusted with the ex-agency, the 
DHS, who was one of the instigators of the toxic burning at 
National Cement ten years ago. So, we thought, oh boy, you 
know, this is just going to be great. 

Well, it is not happening for us. Mr. Strock is like 
the rabbit in the Energizer Battery ads on t.v., and he's 
marching down the road, and instead of the drum going, 
"Bang-bang, bang-bang," it's going, "big business, big 
business . " 

And we are products of lack of regulation in the 
desert. We're the farthest community from our county seat, 
Bakers field. The regulators do not come, and that is why we 
have 24 toxic sites in a little tiny place. 

I do not know whether Mr. Strock 's policies are his 
idea, or Plutonium Pete Wilson's idea. We are still concerned 
about our EIR on National Cement, and we have been waiting since 
'90, when we first started asking for that. 

Also, we did not know that National Cement was 



106 

burning toxic waste for eight years. They burned eight years, 
and nobody knew it until people started to get sick. 

Now, I passed out these packets. And if you wouldn't 
mind looking through to the page with the red markings on them, 
and we're very concerned. This was a federally leaked document 
to us. Mr. Angel has mentioned this document. And you will see 
that the state is striving very hard to keep this incinerator 
open. And we feel that this is a terrible situation and 
advocacy for business . 

Also, the next page after that is a little bit about 
Mr. Rauh. And I do understand that Mr. Strock had agreed to the 
appointment of Mr. Rauh as Acting Director over Permitting and 
Enforcement. And the following from Mr. Rauh talks about his 
attitudes in trying to keep this incinerator going, and this was 
mentioned before. There is four pages highlighted of Mr. Rauh. 

And we do not think that Mr. Rauh should be in this 
job, and we think appointing him to anything very important 
would be a sad mistake. 

Also, we are very concerned about these fees that the 
state gets. They get three percent of the annual gross fees 
from toxic burning at National, and Kern County gets up to ten 
percent. And that's another reason that we, you know, feel that 
it's being kept open. 

It looks to us like the EPA is now BAD, because it is 
the Business Advocacy Department. We do not want one-stop 
shopping for toxic and hazardous waste permits. Right now, 
thank God, we have our water quality board monitoring two water 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



107 

problems at National Cement because their 27 acres of kiln ash 
has been declared hazardous waste, and the Cal EPA hasn't 
decided if it's hazardous waste yet. 

Also, we want the protection of the health of people 
and animals first, and the environment first, and let the 
departments big business, such as the Commerce Department and 
the Chambers of Commerce. 

Mr. Strock wants to streamline the permitting 
process, and we are very worried that this would eliminate much 
public input by having fewer public hearings and public comment 
periods . 

In the desert and in this state, we need more 
regulation and more public participation, not less. Right now, 
in the Mojave Desert area of California, there's six major 
environmental problems: National Cement; two toxic trash train 
proposals; two toxic repository proposals; and the infamous Ward 
Valley Nuclear Dump, putting nuclear waste in unlined ditches. 

If Mr. Strock is confirmed, he would be in charge of 
five or six of these desert environmental disasters. 

By the way, aren't we totally blessed to have people 
that work in the Cal EPA and the federal EPA that are willing to 
put their jobs on the line by leaking these documents to 
environmentalists? Some days, that's the only bright light that 
I see. 

Down where I live in the small town, we consider this 
goings on with Mr. Rauh and all of these problems I've 
mentioned, we consider this just down-right skullduggery. And 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



108 

where I live in Rosamond, on the street that I live in, which is 
rural, of the nine original residents on that street, seven are 
afflicted with cancer. 

When it happens to you, and it happens to your family 
and your next-door neighbor at age ten, you look at these things 
a lot differently. You don't look at this business advocacy as 
a real hot idea. 

We'd also like to bring up the problem of siting 
toxic projects on minority people. We are pledged to help the 
people in Kettleman City. They already have the only one — 
Class I toxic dump in the state, and now they want to inflict 
the toxic incinerator on these people. 

We're running up and down Highway 5 like, you know, 
gas is free, trying to help these people. We've been to the 
East L.A., helping them. We've been to Alpa; we'll probably end 
up in Martinez, trying to back those folks, too. 

The people in Kettleman are fighting for their lives. 
There is a state and federal mandate to reduce the production of 
toxic waste, and instead of spending money at the far end of 
this, we want DHS and the Cal EPA to spend money on the 
reduction of these chemicals . 

Also, on the objectives of the Cal EPA in writing, 
the top one is, quote: 

"Our most urgent attention must be 
turned towards those activities, 
processes and substances presenting 
the greatest risk to public health 



109 
and the environment . " 
We want Mr. Strock derailed, and we don't want 
Mr. Rauh in his position, either. No more big advocacy for 
business. We want environmental advocacy. 

And if you would bear with me, if you would look ten 
pages in from the back of your packet, there's a letter from a 
young lady that lives by National Cement. And I cannot read 
this letter in public, I'm sorry, but if you would read it to 
yourselves, this little girl is asking for help. And she wants 
you to know she's eight-and-three-quarters , not just eight. 
Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Williams. 
Yes, this is a letter from a young girl: 
"My name is Sarah Jane Widmer. 
I was born in this valley 8-3/4 
years ago . 

"I now have nose bleeds and a 
sore throat and my eyes are hurting. 
I want to breathe. 
"Please help. 
"Sara Jane" 
MS. WILLIAMS: And the state toxicologist who's made 
three or four trips down there has never interviewed one person 
that filled out any medical problems on these reports. They 
don't want to know, because they want this place going. 

And I find this letter — I've even had this blown up 
on posters, it gets me so upset that I just — you have to be 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 

8 



110 
there to see what goes on in the desert . 

We need more regulation, not less regulation. We 
need more, and we need the Cal EPA to insist that these counties 
and these air district, and all these people, get with it, 
because they are certainly not down our way. 

And this is a beautiful child, a beautiful little 
girl. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Ms. Williams. 

MR. STROCK: Well, I would just want to stress again 
how important — I'm personally taking time and emphasis on this 
set of facilities. And I hope that we'll be able to reverse, I 
think, the very legitimate concerns about bias in the earlier 
process several years ago, and better get people's confidence. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: One of the considerations, and I 
think Ms. Williams was the last to articulate it, through the 
hearing is that economic considerations are driving the 
decisions of the Agency. 

What concerns me a little bit is, I have a bill in 
which the Agency suggested that we consider economic 
considerations as well as a reason for delay. That was a bill 
that passed in 1986, SB 1500, surrounding the disposal of toxic 
wastes within California. So, I understand the agencies wanted 
to amend that. 

I understand, I'm not being so parochial as to talk 
about my bill, but what concerns me is that — let the 
Legislature make the decision as to what should be weighed as 
between economic, and environmental, and health considerations. 



Ill 

But when an environmental agency is set up, your 
charge is the environment and the public health. And the 
balancing act, quite frankly, should be done by the Legislature. 
And if we decide to change the charge to you, then obviously, 
that is something that you should be concerned about. 

But I get a little bit concerned when the Agency 
itself wants to factor in economic considerations, and I've had 
that experience myself with the EPA in legislation which is 
pending presently. 

So, I'd like you to address that. 

MR. STROCK: If I might, here's a dilemma that we 
face a good bit, particularly in this difficult economic 
situation. 

The state ' s commitment in terms of resources to 
environmental protection is quite great. Not in the budget, 
where it's miniscule, but in terms of what people have to pay to 
get things done and accomplished. So, people are expecting, 
like in other areas, to see value for their money. 

And when we get into areas — and I'll talk about 
permitting for a minute. That came up, and it's a clearer case 
of this — obviously, our — our whole reason for being is 
environmental protection. With that in mind, it's very 
important for us to try to have input when people are discussing 
environmental issues. 

So, for example, when environmental permitting reform 
comes up, I have worked hard to seize the opportunity the 
Governor's given us to be a part of that because other people 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 i 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



112 
that might take the lead, say, a business agency, wouldn't have 
the same commitment to the environmental protections . That 
leads to some tough calls, and the best way that I know to try 
to deal with that and to be of use in the process is to be 
up- front about what we're trying to do, what the considerations 
are. 

But there's no question that our bottom line is 
always environmental protection, period. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Much of state government often, 
and I'm sure your experience, probably, in administrative 
agencies is more detailed than mine, is to win the ear of the 
Governor, or to win the ear of whoever the decision maker is 
going to be, and we look to you to be the advocate for the 
environment, for the public health. 

Obviously, within an area of reason, we look to the 
Secretary of Business and Transportation, or the Director of the 
Department of Commerce to advocate for businesses, as they 
should. 

It's sort of an adversarial system, and we don't — 
and I'm not saying this about you, because I don't feel it's the 
case. But we don't want, you know the white flag of surrender 
up before the debate's been joined. 

MR. STROCK: Sir, I would say, you know, I hope you 
will hear, I've tried to be an extremely strong advocate, and I 
think in fact I often get the opposite criticism, for being too 
unreasonable, which I guess I should reveal here. I think 
that's to be expected. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



113 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We expect in these times of 
massive danger to the public health, you know, from pollution, 
for the Secretary to be unreasonable. Let other people be 
unreasonable in other directions. Obviously, you have to work 
within a framework of what is rational, and what is acceptable, 
and what will state your case the best. 

About my own legislation, I'll talk to you about that 
after we vote. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : There are some very particular hot 
spots, though, that I didn't realize how bad it was, all of the 
hot spots that have been designated. But it really looks like 
some areas are just dumping grounds for the State of California. 
Whoever seems to have the least amount of power, they seem to 
get all the dump places . 

We cannot ignore, and I'm saying you have, but simply 
this Committee cannot ignore these cancer clusters, which are 
just shocking things, where ever they occur. 

So, I intend to vote for your confirmation based on 
your testimony, based on the people who have written in support 
of you, as well as testified in support of you, and based on 
your record. 

But I share some of the concerns of the people who've 
come here, that EPA has not been functioning. It seems to be an 
agency — seems to have been an agency of business, so much so 
there 've been discussions about just abolishing it, because who 
needs something under the title of environmental protection 



114 

being business advocacy. And when California is just struck so 
terribly with a public health problem, especially in the desert 
and Central Valley, we've had stories, after stories, after 
stories of cancer clusters, and it never seems that anything 
gets done about it. 

But you seem to have the background and the support, 
and we're putting our trust in you, because this is a very 
important vote. The public health is what the people expect us 
to guard. You said it. You said it very, very well, and if we 
can't do that, we can't do anything. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: In addition to Mr. Wells, how many 
people from his former shop are now in your shop? 

MR. STROCK: Sir, the reorganization simply brought 
the existing places in. So, the employees below that, with the 
exception, I believe, of a deputy slot that is open, are the 
same people as before. 

What's different is the decision making process, and 
what they're being directed to do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How do you approach this? Do you 
have meetings with your top three or four, five people, and lay 
down what your policy is, and insist that they carry it out? 

MR. STROCK: We have a series of regular meetings, 
Senator Petris, at several levels with the heads of the various 
boards and departments, also with the lead — they're usually 
called executive officers on the boards and departments as well. 
We work with them on areas that cross-cut, like legislation, 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



115 

regulation, permitting, and try to send very strong management 

signals through particular choice — on a particular matter, if 

it's particular important, or sets a precedent. 
I 

SENATOR PETRIS: How about in the Pesticide Control 

part? Is that whole body moved over intact into EPA? 

MR. STROCK: Yes. That's how the law works that we 
worked under. 

And I do not have, in any of the areas, authority to 
affect personnel decisions directly, except as one part of a 
much bigger process . 

SENATOR PETRIS: You have to work with those that 
came over; is that it? 

MR. STROCK: Yes, but let me say, Senator Petris, I 
think — what we've done, I think it's important to recognize, 
the key areas that I think make a real difference on pesticide 
decisions, like the risk assessment areas, we have an additional 
office that does science. One of the key things that we've — 
separate from them — one of the key things we've done, and it's 
often been, frankly, getting very different cultural backgrounds 
in the sense of an agriculture culture versus a public health 
consciousness together. We've — part of my job is to bring 
those people together and get a better decision making process 
out of it. 

And I think you will hear from people on all sides 
that that's been a top priority. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, let me just explain where I'm 
coming from. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

17 

i 

18 



116 
When the Governor, when I commended him earlier in 
the day, when he announced he was going to create this new 
Agency, and pull it out of the bag, I was very happy. As I 
indicated, I had bills to do that, and I had parts of bills, had 
that as part of other bills, and never succeeded with the 
Governor. So, I was happy to see this change. 

But then, the next question was, who's going to be 

ii 

panning the shop? If they take all the Pesticide Control people 

out of Department of Ag., and drop them somewhere else, 

nothing's going to change, because they've had generations of 



19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



policy. 

At one point it was so bad that the Legislative 
[Analyst, in the official analysis of the budget, called the 
Department the "handmaiden" of the industry it's supposed to 
regulate . And the Analyst doesn ' t go around making statements 
like that very easily. It was in their — it was printed in 
their analysis. 

So, my next worry was, well, is the new boss going to 
turn them around, or are their habits from way back, and their 
alliance and loyalty to the chemical industry out there? 

I wasn't concerned so much about their closeness to 
the farmer. The problem there, as I saw it, was that the 
farmers have made a very bad mistake and permitted themselves to 
be used as shields by the chemical companies. And I've 
repeatedly told the farmers, "I don't have a fight with you. 
They're peddling these poisons; you're not chemists. Just get 
out of my way and let me handle the situation directly. " 



117 

But everytime we have a bill to regulate the 
pesticide problem, the growers come in and oppose it. I 
finally talked to the women. I said, "You have children. The 
farmers' wives have children. Your children are vulnerable as 
well as the farmworkers' children. They're all in the same 
area. Why don't you ask your husbands to get out of my way? I 
don't have a quarrel with them, and let me tackle the chemical 
companies?" 

What followed was a tremendous campaign by some 
people within the department, run up and down the Valley, 
stirring up the troops against the spill, which was in their 
interest, in the interest of the troops that were being stirred 
up. 

So, to make it shorter, I'm nervous about the same 
people, with the same mind-set, and a long history, and a 
terrible track record, doing the same job that they were doing 
before, the only difference is, there's a new boss. 

So, the question is: what's the boss going to do? 

I hope the boss can reach out to Ukiah, where 
apparently there ' s nobody been paying any attention to that 
terrible problem up there, and the desert, and all these other 
places, and really go to work on it. I think that's what your 
intention is. 

I don't think you've been there long enough to move 
people. That's not easy. But I would hope to see some pretty 
good progress this coming year in that direction. 

Otherwise, it's just a lost cause. 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



118 

MR. STROCK: I would definitely hope, Senator Petris, 
to meet the challenges you've laid out. 

I would say, and I hope you would find, that when you 
talk to people who have to deal with what is now the Department 
of Pesticide Regulation, that people do sense a very big 
difference. And it's a difference of how everything has to be 
approached. 

The fact is, our purpose is environmental protection. 
That leads you in a very different way to approach things up 
front, then if you're part of a department whose job is to 
advocate a particular industry. 

And frankly, I think that put everybody in an 
impossible situation, the previous situation. Whether it's the 
ag. commissioners who are now being dealt with and expected to 
deal much more seriously as a uniform type of enforcement team, 
or whether it ' s the scientists who have to deal very directly 
and come to terms with people in the new Environmental Health 
Hazard office, or whether it's the leadership in the department, 
I think and I certainly hope that you will notice a very 
distinct difference. 

And I must tell you, I think a lot of people outside 
the department do sense that difference. Some like it; some 
don't. But I think they realize that the expectations are very 
different, and we hope to, again, have a program you can be 
pleased with. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any further questions? 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 i 

20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



119 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move the Committee recommend 
confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves the 
confirmation of James Strock be recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MR. STROCK: Thank you very much. I greatly 
appreciate it, and I hope to merit your confidence. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good, thank you. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
7:30 P.M.] 

— ooOoo — 



120 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of 
the State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; 
that the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel 
or attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 



hand this 



^ 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
day of June, 1992. 



>^-EVELYN J. /HIZAK u 
Shorthand Reporter 



121 



STATEMENT OF LYNNE EDGERTON 

SUPPORTING THE CONFIRMATION OF 

JAMES M. STROCK 

AS 

SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

FOR THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

BEFORE THE 

CALIFORNIA SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

JUNE 17, 1992 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



122 



STATEMENT OF LYNNE EDGERTON SUPPORTING THE CONFIRMATION OF JAMES M. 
STROCK AS SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR THE STATE OF 
CALIFORNIA BEFORE THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE JUNE 17, 1992 



GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS LYNNE EDGERTON. I AM AN ENVIRONMENTAL 
AUTHOR AND ATTORNEY. I SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THE CLIMATE 
INSTITUTE, GREEN SEAL, THE CHILDREN'S EARTH FUND, AND LIGHTHAWK. 
FOR APPROXIMATELY NINE YEARS I SERVED AS A SENIOR ATTORNEY AND 
CONSULTANT WITH THE LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK OFFICES OF THE NATURAL 
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL. MY BOOK, THE RISING TIDE; GLOBAL 
WARMING AND WORLD SEA LEVELS . WAS PUBLISHED LAST YEAR.* 

MR. CHAIRMAN, I THANK YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SENATE CONFIRMATION OF JAMES M. STROCK AS 
CALIFORNIA'S FIRST SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. MR. 
STROCK 'S EDUCATION AND PRIOR EXPERIENCE MAKE HIM HIGHLY QUALIFIED 
TO SERVE AS CALIFORNIA'S CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER. 
INDEED, MANY PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH HIS RECORD AS HEAD OF THE U.S. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ENFORCEMENT UNIT CREDIT HIM WITH 
BEING THE MOST EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT CHIEF IN THE U.S.E.P.A.'S 



*Additional organizational affiliations (for information 
purposes only) include: Chairperson, Children Light the Way, 
Advisory Board, Project Eco-School ; Advisory Board, Environmental 
Communications Office; Advisory Board, Eco-Expo, Inc.; Advisory 
Board, Collette Chuda Fund for the Environment; Advisory Board, 
the Tinker Institute on International Law and Organizations; 
Steering Committee, Sierra Club Task Force on Environmental 
Innovation; Advisor, Journal of Environment and Development: A 
Review of International Policy (U.C.S.D., La Jolla, Ca.) 



123 



HISTORY . 

OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE TO CALIFORNIANS, HOWEVER, IS MR. STROCK'S 
COMMITMENT TO MAINTAINING HIGH ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, WHILE AT 
THE SAME TIME PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH. WHAT CALIFORNIA FAMILIES 
MOST WANT IS AN ENVIRONMENT SECRETARY WHO WILL WORK FOR BOTH A 
CLEAN ENVIRONMENT AND A SOUND ECONOMY, FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE 
GENERATIONS . 

I HAVE JUST RETURNED FROM RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL, WHERE THE HEADS 
OF STATE OF 178 NATIONS MET AT THE HISTORIC "EARTH SUMMIT" UNDER 
THE AUSPICES OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 
DEVELOPMENT. THESE NATIONS COMMITTED THEMSELVES, IN A VARIETY OF 
WAYS, TO WORKING TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE, FOR THE GLOBE, SUBSTANTIALLY 
THE SAME GOAL AS SECRETARY DESIGNATE STROCK HAS ESTABLISHED FOR OUR 
STATE — THE GOAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. FOR MANY AT RIO, AND 
FOR GOVERNOR WILSON, THIS CONCEPT HOLDS THAT NOT ONLY IS ECONOMIC 
GROWTH COMPATIBLE WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT — AS LONG AS IT IS 
THE RIGHT KIND OF ECONOMIC GROWTH — IT IS IN FACT GREATLY NEEDED 
TO RELIEVE POVERTY AND GENERATE THE RESOURCES FOR INVESTMENT IN 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE, IN GREEN TECHNOLOGY, IN 
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, AND HENCE, TO PREVENT FURTHER 
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION. (MACNEIL, 1989.) 

ONE THEME SOUNDED LOUDLY IN RIO: THAT ACTIONS PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE 
LIVELIHOODS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ARE ESPECIALLY ESSENTIAL 



124 



AT THE STATE AND COMMUNITY LEVEL. AS I WENT DOWN THE CHECKLIST OF 
ACTIONS NEEDED TO ASSURE THAT CALIFORNIA IS ON THE ROAD TO 
SUSTAINABILITY, I REPEATEDLY THOUGHT OF INITIATIVES WHICH MR. 
STROCK HAS BEGUN AND GOALS WHICH HE HAS ARTICULATED FOR CAL/EPA. 
I REALIZED THAT MR. STROCK' S LEADERSHIP IN FACT OFFERS A RICH 
OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR STATE TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND ALSO TO 
SEIZE LEADERSHIP AND INSPIRE OUR INDUSTRY TO COMPETE WITH JAPAN AND 
EUROPE FOR AN EMERGING MARKET FOR CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES. I REFER YOU 
MR. CHAIRMAN, IN CASE IT'S OF INTEREST TO YOU, TO THE FIVE 
AGREEMENTS WHICH GLOBAL LEADERS SIGNED IN RIO: THE RIO DECLARATION, 
AGENDA 21, THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, THE 
CONVENTION ON BIODIVERSITY, AND THE FOREST PRINCIPLES. I'LL MAKE 
THEM AVAILABLE TO YOU AFTER THE HEARING IF YOU WISH. 

WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND TO CALIFORNIANS, IS THAT 
MR. STROCK, AS SECRETARY DESIGNATE AND AS HEAD OF THE NEWLY CREATED 
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, HAS ALREADY TAKEN MANY 
STEPS TOWARD SECURING BOTH A HEALTHIER ENVIRONMENT AND A STRONGER, 
MORE EFFICIENT ECONOMY FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS. I WILL 
BRIEFLY DISCUSS FOUR OF THE MOST IMPORTANT STEPS. 

FIRST, MR. STROCK SUCCESSFULLY CREATED CAL/EPA, THUS BRINGING THE 
CORE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR AIR, WATER, WASTE, TOXIC SUBSTANCES, 
AND PESTICIDES UNDER ONE ROOF, WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 
SPECIALISTS. THIS REORGANIZATION RECOGNIZES THE INTERRELATED 
NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS — AND THE NEED FOR CALIFORNIA TO 



125 



DEVELOP INCENTIVES TO REDUCE POLLUTION AND WASTES OVERALL. AN 
INTEGRATED APPROACH PRODUCES THREE RESULTS. FIRST, NEW PROBLEMS 
CAUSED BY POLLUTANT BEHAVIOR IN THE ENVIRONMENT ARE MORE LIKELY TO 
BE IDENTIFIED. SECOND, OLD PROBLEMS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE 
ACCURATELY ASSESSED AND CLEANED UP. THIRD, RECOGNITION OF THE 
DAMAGE THAT TRANSFERS OF POLLUTANTS AMONG MEDIA CAN CAUSE PROVIDES 
A STRONG INCENTIVE TO PREVENT POLLUTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. (HAIGH 
AND IRWIN, 1990.) 

THE VERY CREATION OF A CENTRAL INSTITUTION CAPABLE OF COORDINATING 
INTEGRATED POLLUTION CONTROL REPRESENTS A MAJOR STEP TOWARD SOLVING 
CALIFORNIA'S SERIOUS MULTI-MEDIA AND CROSS-MEDIA POLLUTION 
PROBLEMS. ONLY BY LOOKING AT THE ENVIRONMENT AS WHOLE AND 
CONTROLLING POLLUTION SO AS TO ALLOW MINIMUM NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON 
PUBLIC HEALTH AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES CAN WE TRULY PROTECT 
IT. 

SECOND, MR. STROCK HAS STRONGLY AND EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED BOTH 
CALIFORNIA'S INTEREST IN A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT AND IN ITS FISCAL 
WELL-BEING, BY ADVOCATING THAT THE CLEANUP AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE 
18 CONTAMINATED MILITARY BASES IN OUR STATE BE COMPLETED QUICKLY 
AND AT FEDERAL EXPENSE . IN SO DOING, MR. STROCK HAS DEMONSTRATED 
THAT HE IS WILLING TO FIGHT FOR BOTH CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT AND 
FOR OUR POCKETBOOK. FURTHERMORE, BY VIRTUE OF HIS CONSIDERABLE 
EXPERIENCE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, HE KNOWS HOW. WHEN. AND 
WHERE TO FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS OF CALIFORNIANS VIS-A-VIS OUR 



126 



NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. 

THIRD, MR. STROCK'S COMMITMENT TO VIGOROUS AND EFFECTIVE 
ENFORCEMENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS WILL BE OF 
ENORMOUS LONG-TERM VALUE TO CALIFORNIANS. VIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT AND 
COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECTION OF 
PUBLIC HEALTH, TO THE PROTECTION OF OTHER IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL 
VALUES, AND TO THE CONTINUED GROWTH OF CALIFORNIA'S FAST-EXPANDING 
GREEN BUSINESSES. IT PROVIDES THE CATALYST FOR PRIVATE BUSINESS TO 
INVEST IN FINDING INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, 
AND IN MARKETING THE SOLUTIONS, BOTH AT HOME AND ABROAD. 

FOR MORE DETAILS ABOUT MR. STROCK'S IMPRESSIVE RECORD AS CHIEF OF 
ENFORCEMENT ATU.S.E.P.A., I REFER YOU TO THE LETTER SUBMITTED TO 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI TODAY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS FROM BILL FUTRELL, 
PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE, AND A FORMER 
PRESIDENT OF THE SIERRA CLUB. 

FOURTH AND FINALLY, MR. STROCK FULLY UNDERSTANDS TWO KEY ECONOMIC 
TRUTHS: 1) THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY HOLD 
ENORMOUS ECONOMIC GROWTH POTENTIAL FOR CALIFORNIA BUSINESS, AND 2) 
THAT GOVERNMENT ACTION MUST CREATE, NURTURE AND SUSTAIN THE MARKET 
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND GREEN TECHNOLOGY. MR. CHAIRMAN, 
I UNDERSTAND THAT TWO OUTSTANDING CALIFORNIANS ARE SPEAKING TODAY 
IN SUPPORT OF MR. STROCK'S CONFIRMATION AND ABOUT THE DIRECT 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, VIGOROUS 



127 



ENFORCEMENT, AND A STRONG, LONG-TERM COMPETITIVE POSITION FOR 
CALIFORNIA'S BUSINESSES. I REFER YOU TO THE TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN 
J. EARHART, OF LAGUNA BEACH, WHO IS CHAIRMAN OF THE GLOBAL 
ENVIRONMENT FUND, AND TO THE TESTIMONY OF MR. GRANT FERRIER, OF SAN 
DIEGO, WHO IS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS 
JOURNAL . 

IN CLOSING, I WISH TO EXPRESS MY PERSONAL CONVICTION, PARTLY 
INSPIRED BY THE OPTIMISM, SPIRIT AND ENERGY I FOUND IN RIO DE 
JANEIRO AT THE EARTH SUMMIT, THAT IT IS A VERY EXCITING AND 
CREATIVE TIME IN HISTORY TO BE WORKING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN 
CALIFORNIA. SAVING OUR PLANET WILL REQUIRE THE DIVERSE SECTORS OF 
OUR STATE TO MAKE UNPARALLELED EFFORTS TO EXCHANGE IDEAS, TO 
COLLABORATE, AND TO FORM CREATIVE PARTNERSHIPS. MR. STROCK, WITH 
HIS ENORMOUS ENERGY, CREATIVITY AND DETERMINATION, IS UNIQUELY 
GIFTED TO LEAD CALIFORNIA AT THIS JUNCTURE OF GREAT OPPORTUNITY AND 
PRESSING DEMAND. I UNRESERVEDLY SUPPORT SENATE CONFIRMATION OF MR. 
STROCK AS CALIFORNIA'S FIRST SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 
AND I LOOK FORWARD EAGERLY TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH MR. 
STROCK, THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, 
ACADEMICIANS, CONCERNED CITIZENS, AND BUSINESS OVER THE COMING 
MONTHS. THANK YOU. 



END 



204-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $7.00 per copy plus 
current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1100 J Street, B-15 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 

Please include Senate Publication Number 204-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1992 
1:42 P.M. 



GtPT. 



JUL 1 3 1992 






205-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1992 
1:42 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



1 

ii 

2 APPEARANCES 

3 MEMBERS PRESENT 

4 SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chair 

5 SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRI S 

6 SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

7 SENATOR HENRY MELLO 

g MEMBERS ABSENT 

9 SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 



VICTORIA L. BRADSHAW, Chief 

Division of Labor Standards Enforcement 

LOIS H. HERRINGTON, Member 
Board of Directors 
Hastings College of the Law 

SHARON J. SHARP, Director 
California State Lottery 



21 GENE REYES, Legislative Advocate 
ALIANZA 



PETER F. BONTADELLI, Chief Deputy Director 
Department of Fish and Game 

JOHN J. HOWARD, M.D., J.D., Chief 

Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, Director 
California Youth Authority 



2 7 FERN M. LAETHEM 

State Public Defender 

28 



Ill 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



STEVE BAKER, Legislative Advocate 
Association of California State Attorneys and 
Administrative Law Judges 

ADRIAN K. P ANTON, Esq. 
State Public Defender 

THERENE POWELL, Esq. 
State Public Defender 



12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX 



Proceedings 



Governor ' s Appointees ; 



IV 

Paae 

1 



VICTORIA BRADSHAW, Chief 

Division of Labor Standards Enforcement 

Background and Experience 

Challenges Facing Division 

Refocusing of Priorities to Concentrate 

on Industries with History of Labor Law Abuse 

Ten-point Program in Agricultural 
Sector 

Accessible 800 Telephone Number 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Start-up of 800 Number Program for Farmworkers 

Number of Calls Received 

Wrongful Terminations 

ALRB ' s Involvement or Lack Thereof 

Expediting Wage Processing for Farmworkers 

Use of Telephonic Hearings 

Maximizing Enforcement Presence by Joint Inspections 

Number of Inspections and Citations Issued 

Activities in Garment Manufacturing Area 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Counties Included in Sweeps 

Problems with Sweatshops in Oakland Area 

Status of Fund to Reimburse Employees 

Request for Emergency Appropriation 



1 
1 
2 



3 
3 

4 
4 
4 
5 
5 
6 
6 
7 
7 

7 
8 
9 
9 



Current Bill Imposing Liability on Actual 
Manufacturers as Well as Sweatshop Owners 

Position on Bill as Enforcement Tool 

Familiarity with Legislation 

Good Vendors as Well as Bad Vendors 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

LOIS H. HERRINGTON, Member 
Board of Directors 
Hastings College of the Law 

Background and Experience 

Comments by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Commend Board for Appointing Female 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

SHARON J. SHARP, Director 
California State Lottery 

Background and Experience 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 
Drop in Lottery Sales 
Location of Elk Grove, Illinois 

Motion to Confirm 

Witness in Support: 

GENE REYES, Legislative Advocate 
ALIANZA 

Committee Action 

PETER F. BONTADELLI, Chief Deputy Director 
Department of Fish and Game 

Actions of Office of Oil Spill Prevention 
and Response 



10 
11 
12 
12 
13 
14 

14 
14 

15 
15 
16 

16 
16 

17 
17 
17 



18 
19 

19 

19 



VI 



Full Implementation of Financial 
Responsibility Provisions of Statute 

Contingency Planning Process 

Lightering and Bunkering Area 

Integration with Coast Guard for Joint 
Operations 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

JOHN J. HOWARD, M.D., J.D. , Chief 
Division of Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration 

Background and Experience 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Helpfulness of J.D. Degree in Current 
Position 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, Director 
California Youth Authority 

Background and Experience 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

FERN M. LAETHEM 
State Public Defender 

Progress of Agency Since Last Appointment 

Direction to Phase Out Court of Appeal 
Cases into Area of Capital Representation 

Implementation of Changes to Enhance 
Agency's Mission 

System for Assessing and Monitoring 
Staff Performance and Caseloads 



19 
20 
20 

20 
20 
21 

21 
21 



22 
22 
23 

23 
23 
24 
25 

25 
25 

26 

26 

26 



Vll 



Comprehensive Case Review and 

Monitoring System 26 

In Process of Developing Personnel 

Evaluation Program 27 

Formal Training Program for New 

Attorneys 27 

Statewide Automated Time Keeping and 

Docketing System 29 

Hiring of Paralegals 30 

Effect of Budget Cuts 31 

Authorized Positions Cut from 95 to 68 31 

Intention to Close Los Angeles Office 31 

Long-term vs. Haphazard Reaction 31 

Rationale for Decision 31 

Agonizing Decision 32 

Changes Have Made Agency More Effective in 
Representing Clients and Future Clients 33 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Number of Death Penalty Cases in L.A. Area 33 

Apportionment of Workload between Three 

Current Offices 33 

Current Status of Cases 34 

L.A. Cases Most Easily Absorbed 

by Other Two Offices 34 

Decision to Close L.A. Office Based in 

Part on Location of Supreme Court 35 

Weight of San Quentin's Location vs. 

Supreme Court * s Location 35 

Location of Inmates on Death Row 35 



Vlll 



Witnesses with Concerns: 

STEVE BAKER, Legislative Advocate 
Association of California State Attorneys and 
Administrative Law Judges 

No Opposition to Appointment 

Request to Resolve Concerns before Action 
Is Taken on Confirmation 

Staff Concerns 

Cheaper to Maintain Operations in 
L.A. than Other Two Offices 

L.A. Office has Majority of Experienced 
Attorneys 

Future Inability to Utilize L.A. 's 
Office Space to Minimize Logistics 
Problems 

Closure of L.A. Office Would Affect 
Agency's Minority Staff Representation 

Closing Office Now Is Premature 

No Adopted Formal Budget Yet 

Option of Early Retirement Incentive 

Request to Explore Alternatives before 
Confirmation 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Other Options Explored by Director 

Per Square Foot Rates Similar 

Intention of State to Close Present 
L.A. State Building in Near Future 

Hopeful that L.A. Experience Attorneys 
Will Transfer after Closure 

Experience and Qualifications of 
Staff Attorneys 

Layoffs vs. Transfer of Personnel 



35 
36 

36 
36 

36 

37 

37 

38 
38 
38 
38 

38 

39 
39 

39 

39 

40 
40 



IX 



Opportunity to Retain Jobs 

Majority of San Francisco Office Cases 
Are Southern California Cases Now 

Response to Affirmative Action Hiring Goals 

Decision Not Premature 

Ability of Current Employees to Look for 
New Jobs Early 

Lack of Response to Early Retirement 
Incentive 

Belief that Confirmation and Decision 
Don't Necessarily go Together 

Consideration of All Factors before Decision 

ADRIAN P ANTON, Managing Attorney 

Los Angeles Office 

State Public Defender's Office 

Decision to Close Office Based on 
Fiscal Considerations 

Percentage of Death Penalty Cases 
Coming from L.A. 

Evidentiary Hearings Held in Initial 
Trial Court 

Enormous Expense to Investigate Cases 
without Availability of L.A. Office 

Absence of L.A. Office Will Necessitate 
Hiring of Temporary Help and Facilities 

Rental Differences between Three Offices 

Questions by SENATOR MELLO re: 

Most Cases Are Capital Cases 

Clients in San Quentin 

Investigation of Cases by Public 
Defender's Office 

San Francisco Office Handling Majority 
of Southern California Caseload 



41 

41 
41 
42 

42 

42 

43 
43 

43 

44 

44 

44 

45 

45 
46 

46 
47 

47 

48 



Location of Case vs. Actual Location 

of Client 49 

Response by MS. LAETHEM 50 

Use of Outside Investigators 50 

No Major Added Expenses by Having 

San Francisco Office Handle 

Southern California Cases 51 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

No Desire to Second-guess Agency Head 51 

L.A. Area Very Large Not to Have Office 51 

Response by MS. LAETHEM 51 

Agency Originally Set Up to Handle 

Court of Appeal Cases 51 

Decision Not Made Solely on Budgetary 
Considerations 52 

THERENE POWELL, Senior Deputy Attorney 

Los Angeles Office 

State Public Defender's Office 53 

Decision Not Sensible and Maximizes None 

of Legitimate Agency Concerns 53 

Legal Consequences of Closure 54 

Current Habeas Corpus Case in L.A. County 54 

Background Investigation 54 

Need to Access Court Files and Talk 

to Witnesses 54 

Dealings with District Attorney's Office 54 
Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Type of Proceeding 55 

Loss of Experienced Attorneys from L.A. Office 56 

Better to Cut from Three Offices on 

Seniority Basis 57 



XI 



Difficulty in Handing Cases Over to 

Other Attorneys 57 

Easier to Reassign New Cases than 

Older Ones 57 

Lack of Training for Office's Experienced 

Attorneys 58 

Closure of L.A. Office Is Irrational Decision 59 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Reason for Change in Agency's Mission 59 

Difficulty in Finding Private Attorneys 

to Handle Death Penalty Cases 61 

Administration's and Little Hoover 

Commission's Directive for Agency to 

Focus on Death Penalty Cases 61 

Problem with Taking Cases to Federal 

Courts 61 

Payment Problems with Feds 62 

California Appellate Project 62 

Supreme Court Taking Over Appointment 

and Recruiting Process for Attorneys 62 

Won ' t Require Appointed Attorneys 

To Go into Federal Court 63 

Possible Conflict with Agency's Mission 63 

Agency Not Set up to Do Litigation, 

as in Federal Courts 63 

Great Number of Evidentiary Hearings 

at State Level Unlikely 64 

Abandonment of Participation at Federal Level 
Subversion of Duty in Capital Cases 64 

Experience Showed No Continuity of Counsel 64 

Responsibility in Past Years 65 

Winning Cases in Past 65 



Xll 



Easier to Recruit for Either State or 
Federal Level, but not Both 

Number of Inmates without Counsel on Death Row 

Agency Hopes to Take on Representation 
of Majority of Cases on Direct Appeal 

Increasing Cases vs. Decreasing Personnel 

Private Representation Fees Set by Statute 

Trained Attorneys Handling Capital Cases 
Sooner and Effectively 

Ability to Handle More Cases with 
Less Personnel 

Budget Cut Last Year 

Proposed Cut This Year 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Intention to Vote for Confirmation 

Normal Process of Holding Confirmation on 
Senate Floor for Two Weeks 

Can't Understand Reasoning behind Closure 
of L.A. Office 

Value of Experienced Attorneys 

Statement by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Request that Agency Refrain from 
Retaliation 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 
Agency Troubled in Past 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 
Termination of Proceedings 
Certificate of Reporter 



65 
66 

66 
67 

67 

68 

69 
69 
70 

70 

70 

70 
70 



71 

71 
72 
72 
72 
73 



1 

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now we have appointees, Victoria 
Bradshaw, Labor Standards. 

We traditionally ask the nominee why in the world we 
should vote for confirmation. So, are you prepared to tell us 
about your qualifications, experience, and value to the state in 
that position? 

MS. BRADSHAW: I am ready and willing to do that. 

Good afternoon. My name is Victoria Bradshaw, and 
since October of last year, I've had the privilege of serving as 
the Labor Commissioner for the State of California, which is 
also known as the Chief of the Division of Labor Standards 
Enforcement . 

I'd like to spend just a half a minute telling you a 
little about my background and some of the things that we've 
been doing in the Division for the last several months or so. 

My educational background includes a Bachelor of Arts 
Degree from the University of California at Davis, and a 
Master's Degree from California State University at Sacramento 
from the School of Business and Public Administration. 

My professional background prior to being appointed 
Labor Commissioner has been entirely in the private sector. 
I've had senior level line and staff positions at both the 
corporate and divisional levels. Some of my positions have 
included Corporate Vice President of Personnel for the BATUS 
Retail Group, which included 76,000 employees in such operating 



2 

companies as Saks Fifth Avenue, Marshall Field and Company, 
Fredricka Nelson, Breuner's, and other similar companies. 

I've also been Vice President of Personnel for 
Marshall Field and Company, and Senior Vice President of 
Operations for the John Breuner Company. 

I've also had the experience of owning my own 
business, as well as the privilege of working in my family's 
restaurant while I was growing up. 

The transition from the private sector to the public 
sector has been very easy, and I would like to spend a few 
moments telling you some of the challenges that — interesting 
challenges that have come up in the last seven months that, I 
think, will kind of help tell you where my priorities are, and 
some of the things we've been able to accomplish. 

In the Bureau of Field Enforcement, which is one 
segment of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, we have 
refocused the priorities to concentrate in those industries that 
have a history of labor law abuses, as well as have a 
significant number of low-paid employees. And those industries 
we've identified as agriculture, garment manufacturing, and 
companies that employ children. 

And the reason that we're focusing on those 
particular industries is because we want to make sure the 
resources that we do have — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Both of those employ children. 

MS. BRADSHAW: Right, right. 

There are industries, service industries, that have a 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



high number of children also. 

Anyway, we want to make sure that the resources that 
we do have are being utilized to protect the employees who most 
need our assistance and who are the most vulnerable in the 
workplace . 

And as an example, in the agricultural industry, we 
developed a 10 point program which is really designed to 
alleviate some of the concerns that the farmworkers and the 
farmworker advocacy groups have pointed to us over the course of 
actually several years, but most recently in the last seven or 
eight months. And we, before implementing that program, we 
really spent a lot of time working with those interest groups to 
make sure that the program that we put together was really going 
to help rectify or address the problems that they saw that were 
indigenous to that industry. And rather than giving you all the 
10 points, I'm just going to tell you about two of them so you 
can kind of get the flavor for it. 

The farmworkers and their advocates felt that some of 
our offices were not easily accessible to farmworkers, nor were 
they open at convenient hours for them. So as a result, what 
would happen is that they didn ' t feel that they were able to 
avail themselves of our services . 

We created an 800 number that is staffed by a 
bilingual agricultural enforcement deputy, so that all a 
farmworker has to do is get to a telephone, and then they'll 
have access to an individual who can tell them what federal and 
state services are available. He can tell them how to go about 



4 
filing a claim. He can actually get — mail a claim form to 
them, and they can respond back by mail. We can talk to them 
about their individual problems, and they can simply notify — 
or, they can simply notify us of particular instances. 

SENATOR PETRIS: When did that start? 

MS. BRADSHAW: It started in the first part of May, 
and we've had some very interesting results with that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have you had a lot of calls? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Yes, we've had, in fact, recently, 
last week, we had three separate calls — well, actually two 
calls that dealt with three employers. And we were able to send 
out enforcement units, together with the U.S. Department of 
Labor, and we found not only was there overtime and minimum wage 
violations, but in some cases there was no record keeping. We 
have in two cases potential criminal activity, of which we're 
able to — well, we have under way with the local law 
enforcement agents, and in one case where the employees had been 
terminated, we've been able to negotiate a settlement; we've got 
them back, going back to work. In fact, have negotiated 
settlement in excess of what their lost wages were. And all 
those came off the toll-free number. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Were there in effect wrongful 
terminations ? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Well, they were — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was this in the ag. field or the 
other one? 

MS. BRADSHAW: This was in the agricultural, right. 



They were terminated for having filed a complaint, 
which is Labor Code violation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How come the ALRB didn't step in? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Because it wasn't — 

SENATOR PETRIS: It wasn't asked to? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Well, that maybe — they weren't 
brought into it, but it wasn't a question of the union 
organizing drive. 

They were — they were terminated for — they were 
retaliated against for filing or notifying my particular 
Division. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was it an unfair labor practice that 
they complained about? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Yeah, but the violation was for having 
notified us as opposed to a union organizing drive, and that was 
probably the distinction that was made. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Okay. 

MS. BRADSHAW: Anyway, the other area that the 
farmworker advocates and the farmworkers expressed as being a 
concern is that no matter how we expedite our wage processing, 
it can't be done sufficiently fast to accommodate the migratory 
nature of farmworkers . 

For example, a farmworker, when it gets to the end of 
the harvest in, let's say, Fresno, may find out that he's been 
incorrectly paid, will then file a claim. But by the time, even 
if it's a matter of days, the claim comes up for a settlement 
conference, he may be off to a new harvest in, let's say, 



6 
Salinas, and, as a result, has to abandon his claim. And that's 
been a real problem. 

So what we started doing as part of this program is, 
on a selective basis, doing telephonic hearings, so that the 
farmworker can participate in his hearing that's going on in 
Fresno by being in our Salinas office, so that they don't have 
to abandon their claim. 

In the agricultural area, this year alone, by 
refocusing our efforts, we've done more agricultural inspections 
in the first four months of this year than was done in all of 
1991. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Or '90, or '89, or '88. 

MS. BRADSHAW: Well, most specifically — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Or '87. Okay. 

MS. BRADSHAW: In addition to that, what we've done 
is, we've tried to maximize our enforcement presence by doing 
joint inspections with such other state and federal agencies as 
Cal OSHA, the U.S. Department of Labor. And what this does, it 
gives us a much larger and much more comprehensive enforcement 
presence in the workplace, especially these industries. 

But in addition to that, it gives us the ability to 
tap into and become eligible for other funding sources that we 
would not otherwise be eligible for. And as a result, makes our 
Division less dependent on general fund monies, which has an 
obvious advantage. 

As an example of that, we are currently doing a joint 
project with the Employment Development Department, where we're 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



7 
out looking at potential employers who are not paying their full 
tax contribution, in addition may in fact be violating several 
other labor laws. Now, this has an advantage both to the 
employer and to the employee. Obviously, the ones to the 
employer are obvious, but the — if you have an employer who is 
not paying their employees and not paying their taxes, it's very 
easy to understand how they can undercut the competition. 

So, this — although this project has been in very 
short duration, it's been extremely successful. We've done 
nearly 800 inspections, and from my Division alone, have issued 
nearly 200 citations, and assessing more than a half a million 
dollars' worth of penalties. The combined assessments by EDD 
and ourself is nearly one million dollars in this very short- 
term project. 

In the garment area, we've done numerous multi-county 
sweeps with agencies such as Cal OSHA, in an attempt to make 
sure that we have an increased enforcement presence in that 
industry. And in fact in March, we were in six counties in a 
three-day period, and then followed that up with Cal OSHA 
inspections also. Cal OSHA was with us on those inspections. 

We followed that up with inspections in those same 
areas on weekends and nights, which was the first time that we'd 
done those kind of inspections. And actually, it was kind of 
interesting to see the faces on some of those garment 
manufacturers when we walked in at 8:00 o'clock at night, or on 
the weekends . They were kind of — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Which counties were these? 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 



8 

MS. BRADSHAW: Pardon? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Which counties? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, 
Alameda County, San Francisco and Sacramento. 

So, anyway, those are some of the things that we've 
been involved in over the course of the last seven months. 

There are many other educational efforts, and 
whatnot, that we've been putting our energies into. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Sounds like you've been very busy. 

MS. BRADSHAW: It's been a very busy time. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Any questions from any of the 
Members ? 

Are there any witnesses here to testify in support of 
the nomination or any witnesses in opposition? 

I'd like to follow-up on the garment workers' 
problem. One of their problem areas is in Oakland, where I 
live. It seems that when you have an enforcement presence, 
things happen. 

The problem ' s been in the past years , there was never 
any enforcement presence. So, any activity is a big 
improvement . 

I commend you for moving in on that area. 

Now, we've had the problem of these sweatshops in 
which — you're familiar with it more than I — the employees 
are treated like property. In some places, they've been given a 
dollar an hour for 12-hour days. And then in one case that's 
being pursued by you now, the owners absconded with whatever 



9 

money they had and left the employees holding the bag for 
hundreds of thousands of dollars . 

I understand that the fund set up for that purpose is 
empty because periodically the money's returned to the general 
fund. And you've asked Controller Gray if that could be 
returned . 

Can you tell us the status of that request? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Yes. 

Each year, as you know, the State Controller's Office 
removes any surplus for that particular year. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that done automatically? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Yes. 

And in fact, I brought copies of the budget which 
shows where it actually — the amounts that have been taken in 
the last three years pursuant to that particular Labor Code. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The only way to beat that is to hire 
more people and get more inspectors out there, and get the work 
done; right? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Well, here are a lot of alternatives, 
all of which we're looking at this particular point in time. 

What we're doing, to answer your question, though, in 
terms of what's happening in this particular situation, as you 
may know, we asked the Department of Finance for an emergency 
appropriation so that we could in fact spend more than the 
I $50 ,000 that we appropriate every year, up to whatever has 
ibeen collected this year, which we anticipate to be about 
S$154,000. 



10 

This request for a deficiency appropriation was 
approved by the Department of Finance, and then filed with the 
Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and they now have it on 
file. And assuming we get it, or even when we get approval on 
that, we will begin disbursing those monies. 

We are now looking at disbursing up to the $50,000 
appropriation level I have. 

We have not yet heard back from Mr. Davis's office. 
We expect to hear back soon, but as soon as we hear back, I'll 
be happy to update you on it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. I personally would like to 
know. 

We're pursuing that in the Industrial Relations 
Committee. We had a bill on that today. In fact, I wanted to 
ask you about that before I relinquish the gavel. 

These sweatshops serve the actual official 
manufacturer, which pays them very, very puny amounts of money. 
We were told in the Committee that the owners of the sweatshops 
really can't afford to pay the minimum wage because of the very 
low amounts they get for these garments, which they sell for a 
very, very handsome price, and that includes some of the smart, 
chic stores . 

Now, they send people in from time to time on a 
quality control kind of situation to check out production. So, 
there's a bill we heard to day that would impose liability on 
the manufacturer for labor violations in the garment shop which 
they, in effect, control. They control it for quality; they 



11 

control it for price; they control it in a number of areas. And 
it is felt that they are probably the most influential source 
for compelling the subcontractor to obey the law with respect to 
labor. 

The bill would subject them to a fine, along with the 
sweatshop, for the violations. 

Does that strike you as an improvement in an 
enforcement tool? 

MS. BRADSHAW: Well, I think if you look at the 
arrangements between the actual garment manufacturer and the 
vendor, there are a variety of different relationships. And I 
think to categorize it as one or the other probably does not 
truly identify how that arrangement works. 

There are probably situations where they really do 
control to a great deal, but there are many others where the 
garment manufacturer themselves really are running their own 
business and contract out to a variety of vendors. 

So, I don't think necessarily that it answers the 
question to every particular situation in the garment industry. 
I think it's far more complex than that. 

For instance, in the Oakland area, you have a 
tremendous variety in the type of garment manufacturers that you 
have. You have a little over 150 of them, and between November 
and March, we saw all 150 of them. 

So, the — you can see that it probably will need 
some more tailoring than just a simple answer to that particular 
problem. I think it's a little more complex. 



12 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you familiar with the 
legislation? Have you had a chance to look at it? 

MS. BRADSHAW: I haven't seen it since — if it's 
been revised. I saw it initially, yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'd like to have you take a look at 
it. You may have some suggestions for improving it, but I think 
they're on the right track. 

It's hard to give away — I mean, give these 
explanations that we all give as to why we can't do this or why 
we can't do that, but the workers are down there. 

They just sound like a 19th or 18th Century operation 
in the way they exploit the workers . They treat wages as a 
loan, and they charge them interest for their wages. And often 
they don't pay it, and then this most recent case, one in San 
Francisco and one in Oakland, they just absconded with it and 
went to Hong Kong. I guess the woman is now awaiting trial. 

MS. BRADSHAW: Right, on criminal charges that — 

SENATOR PETRIS: That you filed. 

MS. BRADSHAW: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Okay, well, that's great. I'm very 
impressed with that. I hope you are able to maintain that. 

MS. BRADSHAW: But one thing, just to let you know, 
there are some very responsible garment manufacturers and 
vendors out there. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, right. 

MS. BRADSHAW: Also, the vendors, for instance, when 
the Kong situation came down, it was buyers who came up with 



13 
$250,000 to pay the employees the two weeks' salary that they 
would not have gotten otherwise, because obviously, the Kongs 
were in Hong Kong by that point. 

So, there are some very — 

SENATOR PETRIS: There's some good guys there. 

MS. BRADSHAW: There's some real abuses, but there 
are some people who are trying to play legitimately. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there a motion before us? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move the recommendation to be 
approved . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves the 
nomination of Victoria Bradshaw be recommended, Chief, Division 
of Labor Standards Enforcement, to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 



14 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MS. BRADSHAW: Thank you. 

[Thereupon the Senate Rules 
Committee acted upon legislative 
agenda items . ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Back to appointees, Lois 
Herrington, Member of the Board of Directors of Hastings College 
of the Law. 

Ms. Herrington, we'll ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, and that is why you feel you're qualified 
to assume this position? 

MS. HERRINGTON: Well, I'm a graduate of Hastings. 
I'm a graduate of the U.C. system. I have a very strong 
interest in what happens in the — in this area, certainly with 
our law students . 

I've had some very different jobs in my past: a 
former prosecutor, probation officer, juvenile hall counselor, 
U.S. Attorney General — Assistant U.S. Attorney General. I've 
chaired the Victims of Crime Task Force. I've chaired the 
Congressional task force created by Congress on Drug-Free 
America. 

I just have a tremendous concern about our students, 
how they're treated, how they're doing in law school, what we 
are producing. And I think I would give a lot of care and 



15 
consideration to this issue. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions? 

Is there anyone here in opposition to the nomination 
of Lois Herrington? 

SENATOR PETRIS: While you're looking through that, I 
want to commend the Board for finally finding a woman that they 
could recommend. It shouldn't have been that difficult. 

Next we ' 11 work on some other minority representation 
as well, next go-around; okay? 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Well, I looked through my letters. 
Your resume's very impressive, and I don't see any opposition in 
the audience. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move the Committee recommend 
approval . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We're going to do this quick. 

Senator Beverly moves confirmation be recommended to 
the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris . 



16 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MS. HERRINGTON: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Sharon Sharp, Director of the 
California State Lottery. 

Ms. Sharp, we're going to ask you the same question, 
and that is why you feel you are qualified to assume this 
position; although, you've held it for a little while now. 

MS. SHARP: Yes, I've been here since October, 
Senator . 

Prior to my coming here, I had been Director of the 
Illinois Lottery for nearly four years. Served as a lottery 
consultant for six months after I left that position. So, I've 
had long time experience for a Lottery Director in the lottery 
business, and I've also served in state government for the past 
dozen years with Governor Jim Thompson's administration in 
Illinois in various positions. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

Are there any questions? Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There was a lot of fanfare when your 
predecessor was fired. The Governor said that he just wasn't 



17 

doing a good job because sales dropped. He forgot that there 
was a recession in the land. 

Have sales continued to drop under your stewardship? 

MS. SHARP: Yes, they have, which is not a surprise, 
by the way. About the day I came here eight months ago, I 
explained that we're looking at 18 months. 

And there is — it's very difficult to turn around a 
lottery once it has started to fall. 

And I must tell you that, coming from Illinois eight 
months ago, I minimized the impact of the recession. But we see 
it now with our retailers. We see those problems. So, even 
though we've had some small success in, like, say for instance, 
instant ticket sales, we've had increases there — the lottery 
business is kind of a unique business — we have seen, indeed, a 
recessionary impact. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Where's Elk Grove? Is this in 
Illinois. 

MS. SHARP: Elk Grove Township, yes. That is a 
suburb of Illinois. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's not ours. 

MS. SHARP: Not your Elk Grove. I'm always living 
near an Elk Grove. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

MS. SHARP: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions? 

Is there any opposition in the audience? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move confirmation be recommended. 



18 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves 
confirmation . 

Please come forward. 

MR. REYES: Mr. Chairman, my name is Gene Reyes. I 
represent Almundo Lopez, who is the President of the ALIANZA. 

Originally, we had submitted a letter of concern 
regarding the confirmation of Ms. Sharp, the Director of the 
Lottery. 

But since then, we have met and addressed all issues 
of concern, and we wanted to be reflected in the record that we 
now support the confirmation of the Director, Ms. Sharp, as 
Director of the Lottery. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much for coming 
forward. We appreciate it. 

MR. REYES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly has a motion 
before us. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



19 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation's recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MS. SHARP: Thank you, gentlemen. 

Please buy some tickets now. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Oh, yes, absolutely. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Peter Bontadelli, Chief Deputy 
Director, Department of Fish and Game. 

Is this the third time you've been here? We'll ask 
you the same question, or, instead of asking you why you're 
qualified to assume the position, tell us about your 
stewardship. 

MR. BONTADELLI: Okay. 

Basically, I assumed the position as the 
Administrator of the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response 
within Fish and Game in January. 

Since that time, we have been able to fully implement 
the financial responsibility provisions of the statute, which is 
the only effective program of its kind anywhere in the country, 
including at the federal level. And many of the items that 
jwe've been able to implement through those regulations are 
j! currently being viewed as a potential pattern to resolve 
conflicts elsewhere. 



20 

Our contingency planning process is well underway, 
with public hearings that have been held in the last month in 
both the areas of Prevention and Response that are part of that. 
And we anticipate, by the end of the year, being fully up to 
speed in that area with the regulations in place. 

In the area of lightering and bunkering, or transfers 
of products, with the budget that's still proposed, it appears 
that we will have the positions to begin the full program in 
that area, which has been the highest risk area for reducing 
spills. 

And lastly, we have been able to fully integrate with 
the Coast Guard, through an MOU, for a smooth transition and 
joint operations in the event of a significant incident at the 
state and federal levels. 

Likewise, the conflicts that had been raised by some 
with local government seem to have been ironed out with 
modifications of the regulations on the grant program to local 
governments . 

So, I think we have a program that is basically in 
place, relatively operative in about a little under six months, 
and feel very comfortable with the staff we have in place. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

Are there any questions of Mr. Bontadelli? 

Is there any opposition in the audience? 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves the 



21 
confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary, call the roll. 

You're getting off easy. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation's recommended to the Floor. 

The next appointment is John J. Howard, Chief of the 
Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

Mr. Howard, we'll ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, why you feel you're qualified to assume 
this position? 

DR. HOWARD: Prior to assuming the position that I 
have as Chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health 
on September the 3rd, 1991, I was a faculty member on the 
University of California at Irvine, School of Medicine faculty, 
as a Professor in the Department of Occupational Medicine. 



22 

With a long-standing career interest in occupational 
health and safety, I believe that my professional background in 
this area qualifies me for the position. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions of Mr. Howard? 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, it's Dr. Howard. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Excuse me, Doctor. 

DR. HOWARD: That's quite all right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: He has an M.D., and a J.D. 

Has that been helpful, your J.D.? 

DR. HOWARD: I think it's very helpful in the area of 
public health regulations, of which Occupational Safety and 
Health regulations are a part. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there anyone in the audience in 
opposition to the appointment? 

Then do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move confirmation be recommended. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Beverly moves confirmation 
be recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 



23 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation's recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

DR. HOWARD: Thank you, sirs. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointment is William 
Kolender, Director of the Youth Authority. 

Good to see you here again. 

MR. KOLENDER: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We will ask, I guess, to review 
your stewardship of the position. 

MR. KOLENDER: It's been nine months. 

As you know, I was with the San Diego Police 
Department for a long time. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I know, right. 

MR. KOLENDER: Chief for 13 years, and then with the 
newspapers . 

I was appointed to the Board of Governors of the 
Community Colleges and served two terms . 

While I was with the Chief — with the Police 
Department, I was Chairman of the Task Force to Integrate the 



24 
City Schools. 

In the nine months I ' ve been with the Youth 
Authority, I must tell you I'm impressed with the — with their 
mission, and the people who work there. I think they're 
dedicated. They've been there sometime. They're committed, and 
they like what they do. I've enjoyed the time I've spent with 
them. 

I looking towards improving the areas of education 
and our commitment to employment of the wards, and the classes 
in victims' rights, and in parenting. 

I think we're doing very well. We're obviously 
concerned about the budget. I think it's moving right along. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

Are there any questions? 

Is there anyone in the room in opposition to the 
appointment? 

Then, in a number of capacities we're heard 
Mr. Kolender's appointment. He's very well qualified in just 
about everything he's been assigned. 

MR. KOLENDER: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Do I have a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move approval of the Chief's 
confirmation . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves 
confirmation . 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



25 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote's four to zero; 
confirmation's recommended to the Floor. 

It's good to see you again. 

MR. KOLENDER: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointment is that of 
Fern Laethem, State Public Defender. 

Ms. Laethem, we'll ask you what we ask the Governor's 
appointees, and that's why you're qualified to assume this 
position. 

MS. LAETHEM: Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee, when I 
last appeared before you, it was just a few months into my first 
terms as the State Public Defender, and our agency was providing 
appellate representation to criminal defendants in felony cases 
in district courts throughout the state, as well as in death 
penalty cases in the California Supreme Court. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



26 

I have been directed to phase the agency out of Court 
of Appeals cases and into the arena of capital representation. 

Today, this agency's representation is almost 
exclusively in the California Supreme Court for individuals 
under a sentence of death. 

This critical change in the agency's mission, and the 
growing, very growing, number of unrepresented defendants on 
Death Row, required a reassessment and re-evaluation of how we 
handled our cases. I've implemented several changes which I 
believe, over the last three years, have made our representation 
in these cases more effective, and should also enable us to 
provide representation to more of the Death Row population 
currently without counsel. I'd like to tell you about a few of 
them. 

When I was appointed, we had a completely inadequate 
system of assessing and monitoring staff performance. Several 
actions were taken to remedy this situation. First, I 
established the position of Director of Capital Litigation, and 
we had and have in this position a skilled and able attorney. 
The Director of Capital Litigation oversees and supervises all 
of OSPD's capital caseload and reports to me on a regular basis. 
He communicates regularly with each of the attorneys assigned to 
capital cases, assesses and monitors performance, and makes 
appropriate recommendations . 

Second, I instituted a comprehensive case review and 
monitoring system. Each month, the chief in each office meets 
with the attorneys to discuss and evaluate case progress . This 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

i: 
ii 

27 
28 



27 
includes setting short-range goals for the coming months, as 
well as longer range goals for the next several months. The 
previous month's goals are compared to the actual work 
performed, and if it's fallen short of the goals, the reasons 
are reviewed, suggestions are made for future performance, and 
action is taken. Based on these individual monitoring sessions, 
the chief assistance prepares a report for my review. 

Right now, we are in the process of developing a new 
personnel evaluation program. I've been in contact with 
directors of defender organizations throughout the United 
States. I've gotten ideas and materials from them, and in the 
near future, we're going to implement this. We believe that 
this assessment tool will be a wonderful benefit, not only to — 
to all of us because it will provide the attorneys with an 
ongoing assessment that will help them progress, and will help 
them better serve our clients. 

One of my priorities when I took over, one of the 
things that I felt were — was missing in the agency was a 
formal training program. For over 14 years, this agency has 
been without one. 

There was quite a lot of historical background to the 
feeling in the agency that we didn't need a formal program. We 
didn't need to spend money on somebody whose job it would be 
just to train attorneys, and we didn't need to spend money on 
attorneys for a period of time when they weren't producing 
cases. 

I believed that if we established a training program 



12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 



28 
and put into that program a skilled director, that any money we 
spent would come back to us three-fold in increased 
effectiveness and productivity. 

From within the agency, I put into this position an 
attorney who's a published writer, a skilled litigator, and had 
teaching experience. He has established for the State of 
California one of the few formal training programs for new 
defenders in the United States . For the first month in our 
agency, a new attorney does not casework. He or she is put 
through a rigorous program that includes training in research, 
writing, and oral advocacy, and which sets out and makes clear 
the standards and expectations for the attorneys in our agency. 

We've tracked the progress of these lawyers as 
they've gone through the program during an 18 -month period, and 
our data clearly shows that they're performing better and more 
effectively than similarly situated attorneys who didn't have 
the benefit of this training program. They're being assigned 
death penalty cases much sooner, and they're qualified to handle 
them. In fact, most of them, within one year after completing 
the training, are on death penalty cases. In the past, it was 
taking four to five years. 

I believe that our assessment for the need for this 
program was correct, and I think that it has been an absolutely 
wonderful, wonderful tool to help us better represent our 
clients. 

One of the problems that it was felt that this agency 
had when I took over was that we did not have a comprehensive 



29 
time keeping and docketing system. In fact, there was no 
effective management information system to track cases and 
monitor the work. 

We now have a statewide integrated office automation 
system functioning in each of the regional offices. There are 
two components to it. There's a time keeping part, and there's 
a docketing part that allow concurrent access to both the status 
of the case and the number of hours expended on it by the 
assigned attorney. It runs in each office and provides 
information in a common format to both regional and central 
office management and personnel. It allows us to keep track of 
the cases and the activities in a detailed fashion. 

The data that we are generating will, for the first 
time, help us determine what a workable capital caseload is, as 
opposed to a workable Court of Appeal caseload, and what can be 
expected of individual attorneys . 

In addition, this information is going to help us 
provide the information that control agencies have asked us for, 
and help determine the efficiency of the office by comparing the 
amount of case-specific and non-case-specific time expended, 
much the same as a private law office that tracks their billable 
hours . 

But most importantly, these reports can be generated 
for the attorneys , so that they can take a look at where they ' re 
spending their time, how they're spending their time, and then 
they can help themselves to adjust, if they think it's 
necessary, to be more effective, and to provide better 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



30 
representation to our clients. 

We didn't have any paralegals when I was appointed. 
And I believe and still believe that paralegal professionals aid 
an office in running effectively. They're cost effective 
because they can do the work which not only assists lawyers, but 
frees the lawyers to do substantive legal work that they ' re 
trained for. Additionally, paralegals can perform tasks that, 
in the past, we had to pay investigators $40 an hour, outside 
investigators on contracts, to perform. 

We started out with one paralegal . She now 
supervises a staff of three, and it is my hope that someday in 
the near future, we'll be able to expand this program. It has 
saved us money, and it's enabled us to provide our clients with 
better representation. 

Additionally, our paralegal supervisor is in the 
process of developing a program to train our support staff in 
some of the organizational areas of case management that'll 
maximize the use of our support staff. It'll help them to 
expand their knowledge and provide cross-training, and it'll 
free the paralegals to concentrate on the more substantive work 
requested by the attorneys . We are hopeful this will be 
equally successful once implemented. 

There has been absolutely nothing but praise in our 
office for this paralegal program, for the staff and for the 
work they perform. 

When I was appointed three years ago, we had 70 
authorized attorney positions. With your support, with the 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



31 

support of the Administration and the court, I was able, over a 
two-year period, to get increased funding to bring that number 
up to 95. 

Budget cuts over the last year brought our authorized 
positions down to 68. The current budget crisis has forced us 
to take a hard look at our operations and has resulted in the 
most difficult decision and change that I've had to deal with 
and implement since I've been appointed. 

That change was the announcement on June 17th that we 
intended to close one of our three regional offices and transfer 
employees to the two remaining offices. That is, to the 
Sacramento and San Francisco offices. 

This decision to close a regional office was 
predicated on our belief that if we didn't attempt to devise 
some type of long-term solution, but merely adjusted in a 
haphazard fashion to year-by-year budget cuts, our effectiveness 
in representing our clients would be steadily destroyed, and 
ultimately we would cease to exist as a viable agency. We would 
never achieve our goal, which is to provide effective 
representation, aggressive effective representation, to as many 
indigent capital defendants as possible. 

If, through a layoff process, staff reductions are 
spread through three offices, cases are going to have to be 
reassigned on a piecemeal basis; overhead remains the same. 
More cuts will continue to compound the problem. There'll be 
absolutely no ability to plan for the efficient use of 
resources, for maximizing them, for operations, training, and 



32 
supervision. 

The enormity of this decision has weighed heavily on 
me, and it has been an absolutely agonizing one. But it's 
ultimately one that, in evaluating all the factors, that I 
believe in the long-term will enable us to provide a logical 
organizational structure, strong in accountable leadership, 
efficient use of resources, adequate training and supervision, 
and a skilled staff. 

Mr. Chairman, what — undoubtedly what you're hearing 
from me today is something you ' re going to hear from people in 
the future because of the necessity to reduce state spending. 
And none of the decisions that I've had to make have been easy. 
And the people that are affected by them are understandably 
stressed, and anxious, and angry. I don't think I'd be any less 
so in their place. In fact, I know that I wouldn't. 

And I know that they have their own reasons as to why 
these decisions are being made. 

I don't say this to in anyway pat myself on the back, 
but just simply as a matter of fact. 

I was told of this hearing just a couple of days 
before I announced my decision. I could have delayed the 
closure announcement until the meeting, because it was only a 
matter of a week, but I didn't, and I chose not to because I 
believe in the necessity of my decision, and I wanted to be 
up- front about it. I felt it was important that, in making this 
decision, that it needed to be done regardless of any personal 
consequences . 



33 

Each of the changes that I've discussed have made the 
agency more effective in discharging its duties to our clients. 
This last decision was difficult. I can't even describe it. It 
was an agonizing and difficult decision, made within a current 
economic reality. And I believe that within that reality, in 
the long-term, this — and for the long-term, this is the 
decision that has to be made. 

Three years ago, you showed your faith in me through 
your vote to confirm my appointment as State Public Defender. I 
have tried over these three years to run this agency in a way 
that reflected credit to your decision by discharging every duty 
that I've had to the best of my ability. And I'm very proud of 
what I've accomplished. 

I believe I'm qualified to continue to direct this 
agency, and I respectfully ask that you vote to confirm my 
appointment as the State Public Defender. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Ms. Laethem. 

Let me start by asking you just a question on the 
closing of the Los Angeles office. 

I have some information indicating that the Los 
Angeles office actually, in regard to the number of death 
penalty cases, has the highest number of cases. Am I correct? 

MS. LAETHEM: The Sari Francisco office, sir, has 13; 
Sacramento has 17; and the Los Angeles office has 18. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is that apportionment a fair 
assessment as to what the workload is? 

MS. LAETHEM: Can I answer that by — if I might, and 



34 
if I'm not answering, tell me — by, I mean, obviously saying 
that the caseload, and analyzing the caseload, had to be one of 
the clear factors in dealing with this. 

And what we looked at were not just the numbers, but 
the cases themselves. Of these cases, numbers that I've just 
given you, the Sacramento office has seven cases which are in 
the pre-opening brief stage. The San Francisco office has nine 

cases which are at this stage. That is, these are the cases 

i 
which require — there ' re at the very beginning. They require 

the very most work. 

The Los Angeles office has three cases that are in 
this status. 

The chief assistant of the offices gave us the — 
gave us information projecting where their cases are, and where 
they will be going. 

It is our belief, after analyzing this information, 
including analyzing where these cases are at, that of the three 
caseloads, the one that is the most easily absorbed by the other 
two offices — and we analyzed it from the perspective of each 
office — is the Los Angeles caseload. 

Additionally, in the Los Angeles caseload, there are 
approximately ten cases which we believe that the attorneys who 
are working on them, and they'll continue to work on them, these 
cases can be completed within six months on the state's side, 
because at this point, for various reasons, not the least of 
which is budget, we are no longer going into federal court. 
That was another factor in analyzing the cases. 



35 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Was the fact that you chose to 
close the Los Angeles office instead of the San Francisco office 
based in any way on the fact that the Supreme Court sits in San 
Francisco? 

MS. LAETHEM: There were a lot of these other types 
of factors that we looked at. We looked at where our clients 
were. Our clients are in San Francisco; they're all at San 
Quentin. 

We looked at where the Court is; the Court is in San 
Francisco, at least their main headquarters. 

We looked at where the seat of government was; where 
our control agencies were; where the Legislature and the 
Administration are. That was in Sacramento. 

Those were also components of this decision. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The fact that San Quentin is in 
San Francisco, did that weigh heavier than the fact that the 
Supreme Court is in San Francisco? 

MS. LAETHEM: Yes, it did. Our — our clients are 
there, and that weighed very heavily in this decision. As far 
as — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are Death Row, they're all in San 
Quentin? 

MS. LAETHEM: Yes. Oh, there is one exception with 
— there is a woman who is not housed there. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there any opposition in the 
audience — well, concerns or opposition? 

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Members, Steve Baker with 



36 

Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Association of 
California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges, which 
includes the public defenders, the attorneys at the Public 
Defender's Office. 

First of all, we do not oppose Ms. Laethem's 
appointment. We only became aware of the proposal to close the 
L.A. office within the last day. And for that reason, we really 
do have just some concerns. 

But we would like to ask this Committee that we have 
an opportunity to resolve those concerns before you take action 
on her confirmation. 

I would like to just take a minute to highlight what 
our concerns are, and then I have some of the folks here from 
the Public Defender's Office, from both the San Francisco office 
as well as the Los Angeles office, that could answer any 
specific questions you might have about their operations. 

First of all is the cost. I'm going to list concerns 
without any real priority. 

One of the things that we know you're wrestling 
around with is the state budget, and resolving that budget 
crisis . 

As far as the cost, we believe that it's far cheaper 
to maintain operations in the L.A. office because of the 
workload. There is quite a bit of work that will have to be 
done in the future in Los Angeles: conducting the 
investigations and the other aspects of the cases . 

The Public Defender's Office in L.A. operates out of 



37 
the downtown L.A. State Building, which has lower overhead than 
the other offices in San Francisco or Sacramento, where their 
office space lease is more expensive. 

Ms. Laethem also talked about the need to train staff 
so that they've got experienced staff. 

The effect of closing the Los Angeles office is 
really to eliminate the folks in the L.A. area, because most of 
the folks down there have already indicated that they ' re not 
willing to transfer. They'll leave state service. Therefore, 
the Public Defender's Office is going to lose a great deal of 
experience . 

And I think that the Public Defender's Office has an 
experience problem, where they've got a lot of young, less 
experienced attorneys, and then some more experienced folks. 
And what happens with closing an entire office is that we'll be 
getting rid of all of those individuals. So, that's really a 
key concern. 

We're also concerned that there's going to be a lot 
of waste of time, because if the folks in the L.A. office decide 
to leave state service, as they've indicated, then that means 
that attorneys in the other offices — Sacramento and San 
Francisco — will have to be brought up to speed on those cases . 
And because of the complexity of the cases, that could take a 
considerable amount of time. 

As far as — there's also a logistics question with 
travel. Without having anybody in the L.A. office right now, 
there are a lot of economies that exist by utilizing the L.A. 



38 
office space. 

And the last thing that I would like to list as a 
concern is the Department's affirmative action hiring goals. 
I think that the Department ' s under a requirement by the State 
Personnel Board to improve their affirmative action hiring, and 
it just so happens that the L.A. office is where the minority 
representation in Public Defenders exists. So, we would also 
see a problem with the affirmative action. 

I do have a petition here from a large number of the 
Public Defenders from throughout the state who would like to ask 
you, again, not to oppose her confirmation, but give us an 
opportunity to explore some of these concerns. We'd like to 
share that with the Committee. 

As far as closing the office now, we do think that 
that is just a little bit premature. The Legislature has not 
adopted a budget yet. We still don't know what the outlines of 
that entire budget agreement are going to be. And we think that 
there are some other solutions that could be used to reduce the 
size of staff without closing the office. 

The Governor just offered an early retirement 
incentive to state employees . We don ' t know whether or not 
that's going to work, and how many of the Public Defenders are 
going to take advantage of that option. 

We think that there's a lot of other things that can 
be done, other than just simply closing the L.A. office, and 
we'd like to explore those. 

Again, I have some of the attorneys with the Public 



39 
Defender's Office that are available to answer any specific 
questions on their operation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

What about the question of other options? Did you 
explore that? 

MS. LAETHEM: We did, sir. 

May I address some of these, because — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, please. 

MS. LAETHEM: — it all seems to become a part of it. 

As far as the cost, closing any regional office — 
L.A. , Sacramento, or San Francisco — is going to result in some 
cost savings . 

The fact of the matter is, if you're looking simply 
at per square foot rates, they aren't all that different. 

One of the other factors that we took into 
consideration in looking at them, although this - the rent was 
not, you know, something that drove this, is the fact that we 
have already been notified as far as the L.A. office goes, that 
in a few years, we will no longer be in that building. We are 
being moved out to a new office building that is being built 
opposite the Ronald Reagan Building. And so, in fact the cost 
— the cost will go up there. 

We do have a very experience staff in our Los Angeles 
office. That is quite true. 

We are, number one, very hopeful that many of these 
attorneys will transfer. At the present time, our indications 
are that there are four attorneys that — one that is definitely 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



40 
transferring, who was going to transfer anyway, and three others 
that are considering transferring. 

We also looked at experience. It's true that there 
are attorneys that have 14 and 15 years' worth of experience. 
But we also have attorneys in our other two offices that have 
experience in the 5, 6, 7-year range that are fully qualified to 
handle these cases. And at a certain point, while 15 years is 
more than 7, the quality of this experience, the qualifications 
of these attorneys, are excellent. 

One of the factors that was just mentioned was wasted 
time in bringing attorneys up to speed. The reality that we 
dealt with is that we have been informed that we must reduce 
spending, and that there will be budget cuts. That is going to 
result for us in layoffs. That's where our money is, in 
personnel . 

So, whether it's layoffs, or whether it's transfers, 
there is going to be a dislocation in our cases. We are going 
to have similar problems. Attorneys may have to be brought up 
to speed. 

One of our reasons, as I stated before, is that — or 
I may not have — this was all part of the consideration. 
Dislocation is going to occur. 

And I know that if I was in Los Angeles, I don't 
think that I would see a difference between a layoff and a 
transfer, because I would say it's all the same to me. 

But there's got to be, somehow, when you can look at 
it from a different perspective, there are going to be people 



41 
around this state that aren't going to have jobs soon. They're 
going to be actually completely out of work. With 60 days' 
notice, they're going to be gone. 

And while I know how this — I mean, emotionally, and 
physically, and the ties to whichever office it was — Los 
Angeles, San Francisco, or Sacramento — are there. There is an 
opportunity to transfer. There is an opportunity to keep your 
job. 

The travel was mentioned. The — we have — right 
now, the majority of cases in our San Francisco office are 
Southern California cases. That is — that hasn't been a 
problem or that much of a factor. 

It's true that — well, in terms of doing 
investigations, our investigators travel all over, and we — we 
weighed that, we looked at that. 

As far as the affirmative action hiring goals, there 
is — and I don't think this is being said — but there is no 
way that any decision here was made on the basis of any type of 
discriminatory action. I — in my life, in my career, I never 
have, nor would I do that. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I don't think he was inferring 
that. I think he was saying the L.A. office was further along. 

MS. LAETHEM: But the — part of this is, you know, 
and maybe it is pragmatic, but if they transfer, if people 
transfer, the people will transfer to the other office and will 
maintain that. 

It's not anything that we — that we desire to 



42 
happen. Transfers can help that. 

The prematurity is something that has been brought 
up. This decision isn't premature. Every — we have been told 
and directed that our budget is going to be cut. That starts — 
the end of this fiscal year is June 30, and on July 1, we start 
going into next year's money. 

Agencies that delay making these decisions, I 
believe, in the long run are hurting their staff and hurting 
themselves, because when the cuts come, they're going to be 
taking these cuts out of less money, not the full budget money 
because they'll have been spending it. 

And the other part of it that I think is very 
important is that there are going to be people looking for jobs 
in this state because they've been laid off. And those jobs 
that are available, either as special fund agencies or whatever, 
are going to disappear. And the people that are looking now, 
and not the ones that are looking later, are the ones that are 
going to get those jobs. 

It's only premature if we sit here, and I put my head 
into the sand, and I say, "It's not going to happen." We didn't 
do that. We have been looking at layoffs. We have had 
seniority lists prepared. We have been looking at this problem 
for a long, long time because I believed it was the only 
responsible way to handle it. 

The early retirement incentives, the information has 
gone out. Our indication is, because they were due back the 
23rd, that there might be one or two people: one support staff 



43 

member, and possibly one other person that might be interested 
in it. It's not going to impact on us. 

This decision is one that I believe has to be made. 
I also believe that putting it off, or putting — putting off my 
confirmation in order to discuss this decision — don't — it 
doesn't necessarily go together. 

I'm here before you for you to assess whether I'm 
qualified. Obviously, in looking at what I've done, you've got 
to assess: am I a qualified person; are these decisions 
correct; did I base them on rational factors; did we consider 
everything . 

But I believe that uncertainty and the disruption 
that it can cause is, in the long-run, going to hurt the agency. 
It's going to hurt the clients. 

I understand, and I really do understand what they're 
saying in asking us to consider it. And — and we have 
considered these factors, every one of them. 

And I wish that I could sit here and say, you know, 
there is a better solution, that we believe there's a better 
solution; that layoffs are the answer, or that waiting is the 
answer . 

We don't. I believe the decision is the correct one. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

Please identify yourself. 

MR. P ANTON: Yes. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, my name is Adrian 
Panton. I'm the managing attorney in the Los Angeles office. I 



44 
would — and I'm a 15-year member of that office. 

I would like to just direct a few comments to the 
basic theme which Ms. Laethem has advanced for cutting the 
office. The quote, and I'm quoting, I believe, the words that 
she used, that eliminating Los Angeles is a long-term solution 
to haphazard budget cuts, that, of course, means that this is — 
this decision is based on fiscal considerations. 

I would like to point out to the Committee that the 
Los Angeles office is the last office that anyone would ever 
eliminate for the purpose of fiscal — to incur any fiscal 
savings . 

Sixty percent of the death penalty cases come out of 
the Southern California area. The majority of them come out of 
the Los Angeles County and adjacent county areas. I would 
venture to guess that approximately 70 percent of our death 
penalty caseload is from the Southern California area. 

The importance of this in terms of fiscal 
considerations is simply this. These cases are very complex and 
very time consuming. A lot of background investigation has gone 
into the families of the defendants, as well as into the crime, 
the crime scene. Most of the family members are in the Southern 
California area. 

When we do get evidentiary hearings, they are 
conducted in the trial court where the person — where the death 
judgment had been imposed, which means that these hearings are 
in the Southern California area. 

Now, if you eliminate an office from the region where 



45 
most of these death penalty cases are drawn, you are really 
creating an enormous expense when it comes to investigating 
these cases as well as conducting hearings. 

Let me get to the issue of conducting hearings. We 
have two large hearings right now that are — may or may not got 
before this office is scheduled to close in the Southern 
California area. One is in Riverside — I'm sorry, San 
Bernardino County; one is in Los Angeles County. 

The one in Los Angeles County is an enormous hearing. 
It is going to be a three to six week hearing. Several 
witnesses are from the Los Angeles area. 

The absence of an office in that area, where you have 
the support staff, other attorneys to assist — to assist you, 
is going to result in the agency having to hire temporary help, 
hire temporary facilities, where the attorneys can do work, you 
know, after the hearing. 

And this is not just going to happen on one case. 
There are several other cases that — where this, you know, this 
can occur. 

When you just look at the pure figures on that, it 
just comes to be an enormous expense. You — it's almost 
impossible to put a figure on it, but anyone can see that where 
70 percent of your cases are in that area, that you are really 
setting yourself up for an enormous cost overrun by closing an 
office where 70 percent of our caseload, and 60 percent of all 
death penalty cases, you know, come. 

Just one other items in terms of the cost of 



46 
operating the Los Angeles office, I'd like to bring to your 
attention the difference in just rental between the three 
offices. The rental for Los Angeles is $190,000; for San 
Francisco it's $460,700; for Sacramento it's $372,400-something 
dollars. 

There is just no cost savings. We are the only one 
of the three offices that is actually located in a state 
building. In five years, when the building in which we are 
located is scheduled to be destroyed, we will be moving into 
another state facility. 

The other two offices are private commercial 
buildings. There would never be a cost — Los Angeles will 
always have a cost savings . 

So, I think — and I am just addressing the fiscal 
considerations, if you — from a simply fiscal standpoint, which 
is the reason Ms. Laethem has advanced for eliminating the 
office, the move — I mean, the closure of this office just 
simply doesn't make any sense. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: I think the closing of the L.A. 
office, I would defer to Senator Roberti and others that are 
down in that area , and they know about that . 

But in looking over the research done by the Senate 
Office of Research, you said that 70 percent of these cases are 
drawn from the L.A. area. But aren't these mostly capital 
punishment, capital cases? 



47 

MR. PANTON: They — they all are capital. Yes, they 
all are capital cases. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aren't most of these residents of San 
Quentin? 

MR. PANTON: Yes. All of the — let me explain the 
process . 

San Quentin houses all of the Death Row — male Death 
Row inmates. That is not where the problem comes in. Traveling 
to San Francisco to see your client, we don't see our clients 
every day. It's not necessary to see them. You know, we see 
them once or twice a month, or sometimes even less — less 
frequently. 

The cost comes in in working up the case. The case 
is worked up in the county where they had — where the death 
judgment was imposed. That is the point that I am making. 

In other words, 16 of the 18 cases in the Los Angeles 
office were cases that were tried in the Southern California 
area. Those cases are all being investigated down out of our 
office. That's the point that I'm, you know, that I'm making. 

There isn ' t anything to do in San Quentin — 

SENATOR MELLO: Wasn't the Public Defender's Office 
involved in the investigation? 

MR. PANTON: Yes, we do. 

SENATOR MELLO: So, defenders are investigating these 



cases? 



MR. PANTON: Yes. 

SENATOR MELLO: Because it also states here that the 



48 
percentage of the inmates that come from the Los Angeles area, 
most of the males are located at San Quentin. It also points 
out that the San Francisco office at this time is handling the 
majority of these Southern California caseloads. 
MR. PANTON: That's not true. 

SENATOR MELLO: Well, then, our staff did some lousy 
research. 

MS. LAETHEM: If I might, I think what they meant to 
say was that within the San Francisco office, the majority if 
their cases are Southern California cases. 

SENATOR MELLO: Let me read you the sentence. It 
says: 

"Most cases are from Southern 
California. " 
That's the allegation. 

"Although Southern California 
inmates comprise the bulk of capital 
cases, all the inmates are located 
in Northern California at San 
Quentin. In addition, at this time, 
San Francisco handles the majority 
of the Southern California 
caseload. " 
MR. PANTON: Senator, maybe one thing I can point 
out, there are attorneys in San Francisco that are working on 
cases out of Southern California. And again, it ' s a reason to 
keep the Southern California office open, because the support 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



49 
staff and the attorneys in the L.A. area can help out on 
providing those investigations . 

If that office is closed, then that resource is not 
available any more to the attorneys up in Northern California. 

SENATOR MELLO: So, is that incorrect, then? 

It would seem to me that if you have an office — 
personally, when I looked geographically, I wondered first of 
all why you're closing L.A. It seemed like closing Sacramento 
or San Francisco would allow a better balance. But then, if you 
look at the caseload — but this statement does say, and it 
seems possible and/or feasible that the San Francisco office 
that's right there adjacent to San Quentin could have and 
process these caseloads and work them up to the point where 
they ' re ready for whatever procedures are to take place . 

MR. PANTON: There are two incorrect things. 

One, no, the — San Francisco does not — simply does 
not handle — that is an incorrect statement. They do not 
handle most of the cases out of Southern California in our — in 
our agency. 

SENATOR MELLO: That are located in San Quentin? 

You see, here you have the inmate located in San 
Quentin, and their cases are subject to appeal, or whatever the 
procedure might be — 

MR. PANTON: They could be located in Podunk, 
Mississippi. It doesn't really matter. 

Their cases occurred, and the crimes occurred, in 
Southern California. That is — that is where the real issue 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



50 
is, and that is why it is so important — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Where the investigation has to 
take place. 

MR. PANTON: Yes, right, because that's where the 
costs, you know, comes in. It doesn't really mater where the 
client is. 

SENATOR MELLO: Okay. 

MS. LAETHEM: If I - 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Laethem. 

MS. LAETHEM: Thank you. 

If I might, the — the fact that the cases come out 
of the — or the majority of the cases come out of Southern 
California is very correct. 

However, the investigation of these cases are, for 
the most part, handled by investigators throughout the state. 
Experts that we hire for these cases come from all over the 
state. We have — there are very few experts that are in this 
field. We taken them where we can get them. 

Additionally, simply because the case is from 
Southern California doesn't mean that there aren't costs. The 
case that Mr. Panton referred to in San Bernardino County, yes, 
that's a Los Angeles case, but in that case we have had to hire 
local counsel, and make arrangements for local offices because 
of the distance involved. That doesn't — that hasn't changed. 
That's a Los Angeles case, and the expenses are still there. 

Investigating and conducting the hearings, and 
talking to family members, family members aren't talked to on a 



51 

daily basis. There may be one in-person interview. Most of it 
is done by phone. 

We've had no major, in any way, added expense by 
having our San Francisco office handle these Southern California 
cases. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I hate to second-guess any agency 
head — that's not our function — as to decisions you make. 
You know, as you're trying, you have to live within economies, 
and you have to make some very tough decisions, as all agency 
heads have to. 

If I were making the decision myself, and I'm not the 
Public Defender, frankly, I think it makes sense to have one 
north and one south office. It's just because of the size of 
the state. 

Therefore, I mean, I have to say I don't agree with 
your decision, but that's not my point. The point is whether it 
was a rational decision based on, you know, information that you 
had before us, and I guess it is defensible. Although, Southern 
California is an awfully large area not to have an office there 
just for investigative purposes, and to have two in the north 
strikes me as odd. 

MS. LAETHEM: Ideally — ideally, if we were setting 
up this agency today, right now, and you said, "Set up an office 
that provides representation to capital inmates," all we'd have 
to do, and what we would need to do is set up one office. 

This agency was originally set up to handle Court of 
Appeal cases throughout the entire State of California. And all 



52 

we would need is one. 

Now, I'm not saying that that is our plan, that we 
are, you know, in a few years we have to plan to — to close it 
and only have one office. 

In fact, a few years from now, we might find that two 
offices 85 miles apart are just as effective as one. 

It is a mischaracterization to say that this was done 
simply for budget reasons . The budget drove us to look at our 
operations, but we believe that we can maximize our resources, 
we can provide more effective training, we can provide more 
effective supervision, and in fact what we can provide — and it 
is so unfortunate that what ' s driven us to this is this terrible 
situation that the State of California finds itself in — but 
that out of this will come a agency — and we hope that 
everybody in Los Angeles that can will transfer and be a part of 
this — but out of this is going to come an agency that is going 
to take up responsibility and the burden of the representation 
of as many capital inmates as possible. 

Because if we're not, the Court is going to have no 
choice but to start finding private attorneys who may not be 
qualified. We have 86 people on Death Row without lawyers now. 
This — we are not playing for the short-term solution here. 
And we analyzed every factor in coming to this decision. 

We believe that in the long-term, this is what's 
going to give our clients and the state what they need. This 
isn't to say that we didn't balance our employees and our 
clients. 



53 

And I realize exactly what you said. You, sitting 
there, have every right not — not to agree with my decision. 

I do stand behind it. 

But know that this is being done, bottom line, for 
our clients and our future clients. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Next witness, yes. 

MS. POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Therene Powell. I'm a senior Deputy State 
Public Defender in Los Angeles. I joined the Los Angeles office 
in October of 1976, and I am the longest term attorney staff 
member statewide within the office. 

I think Mr. Panton has given you a good summary of 
the fiscal costs. 

I have been thinking about this decision since it was 
suddenly announced to us. I don't believe that it makes any 
sense at all from a fiscal perspective, a legal perspective, or 
a humanitarian perspective. 

Most decisions that you confront here in the 
Legislature involve tradeoffs. You can't get everything you 
want. Something has to suffer for something else. 

This is a decision of almost stunning stupidity that 
manages to maximize none of the legitimate concerns of our 
agency. 

If the rent figures that Mr. Panton stated to you 
were not sufficient in themselves to make someone wonder why the 
most economically sound office in the area where most of the 
cases arise is the one slated for closure, I'd like to talk to 



54 

■ 

you about the legal consequences . 

I am one of the counsel in one of the habeas corpus 
cases that Mr. Panton mentioned, the one that's in Los Angeles 
County. And it is — we are anticipating a very lengthy and 
complicated evidentiary hearing. 

In some ways, my case is very different from most of 
the ones which will arise in Los Angeles. Although my client 
was convicted in Los Angeles County, he spent most of his 
childhood and young adulthood out of the state. So, a lot of 
the background investigation in that case, unlike most of the 
others , does not have to be done in Los Angeles . 

It's true, I can make a phone call to Alabama or 
Florida as easily from San Francisco or Sacramento as I can from 
Los Angeles. In that sense, you might say this is not a 
geographically-based case. 

Yet I am — and I can assure you, that this is what I 
am doing when I go into the office each day — actively engaged 
in the preparation of that case. And the advantages of being in 
Los Angeles County are immense. We are looking at court files. 
We are talking to some witnesses in Los Angeles. We are dealing 
with the Attorney General's Office and the District Attorney's 
Office in Los Angeles on usually a weekly if not multi-weekly 
basis. And these are not things that can all be done by letters 
and phone calls. Or, if they could be, they would take three 
days or four days to complete, instead of a half hour. 

And if that is a cost saving in attorney time, then 
I'm — my mathematics is — is completely off. 



55 

And I want to emphasize that case to you, because as 
I said, it is unusual. It is unusual — that would be a case 
that someone might hold up and say, "Look, geography doesn't 
matter so much. Look at this case. Look at all the out-of- 
state work. That could be done from anywhere." 

That wouldn't be fair, because it would be such an 
unusual case. But that would be a case I might pick if I were 
trying to make the case that geography didn't matter 

And yet, I can assure you that being in Los Angeles 
does matter. It matters immensely. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Question, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: On that case, I don't understand 
evidentiary proceeding. 

Isn't this an appellate situation? Or was it 
remanded back for trial, or what? 

MS. POWELL: This is a habeas corpus case which — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Oh, I see. 

MS. POWELL: — was filed in conjunction with the 
appeal. We've received an Order to Show Cause from the 
California Supreme Court, which represents their determination 
that we established a prima facie case, but now we have to have 
a hearing to see if we can actually prove up the allegations 
that they were relying on when they made that determination. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Which level is that, the appellate? 

MS. POWELL: The — there's a referee who is a judge 
of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 



56 

SENATOR PETRIS: He's appointed by the Appellate 
Court? 

MS. POWELL: But she's actually appointed by the 
Supreme Court and is working for them. She's not really working 
as an L.A. Superior Court Judge a this point. 

SENATOR PETRIS: She's a referee. 

MS. POWELL: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So you have what amounts to a trial 
on that issue? 

MS. POWELL: Exactly. 

What I wanted to speak to you primarily was the legal 
considerations and the question of experience. 

We've heard that there are going to have to be 
layoffs, that there — it's an unfortunate fact of life, 
affecting all state agencies. It doesn't matter where the cuts 
come. It's just a matter of numbers. 

What's wrong with closing Los Angeles if there will 
have to be cuts anyway? I'd like to tell you what's wrong with 
that. 

Los Angeles has the highest percentage of experienced 
attorneys, and attorneys experienced in capital work. We are 
not fungible with attorneys one or two years out of law school, 
like they have in Sacramento. 

I was an attorney with seven years' experience, and 
yes, like Ms. Laethem said, I think I was pretty good. But I 
sure wasn't as good as I am now. 

If you cut proportionately, because of the seniority 



57 
system, you will be cutting from each of the three offices the 
least experienced attorneys . You will be cutting in some cases 
attorneys who have no capital cases, so they don't create any 
disruption in that area. 

In most other cases, you will be cutting attorneys 
who have only one capital case, and if they have that one, 
they've been very recently assigned to it. So, they haven't 
spent a lot of work on it. They don't — somebody else can come 
in, take over that case, and try to get up to speed on it. 

I've spent three or four years on each of my cases. 
There are things that I could talk until next December, and I 
could not convey, try as I might, to someone else who hasn't 
lived with the case through its permutations, as I have, what is 
going on in that case. Handing it over to an already fully 
engaged senior attorney, or even worse, to an attorney with two 
or three years' experience, is not going to be something to 
promote effective legal representation. 

We have fine people in our offices, in all of the 
offices; fine new people. And I hate the thought that the 
budget situation may mean that they have to leave. 

But they are not as vital to our mission as the 
experienced attorneys who have cases ongoing that they have 
already spent a tremendous amount time on. 

The idea that Sacramento or San Francisco has seven 
brand-new cases, that's a reason, you know, why it will be — it 
would be easier to reassign those cases, not the way it's being 
analyzed by our Director. 



58 

I'm also the coordinator of training for the Los 
Angeles office. And we have done — you heard about the 
training program for new attorneys , and I think that's a good 
idea. But we have no training for experienced attorneys within 
the office. I don't think that's our administration's fault. I 
think that ' s — that ' s simply a matter of budget and time 
constraints, where it has not yet been possible. 

But nevertheless, that's the unfortunate fact of 
life. The only training senior attorneys get is when the office 
can afford to send a few of us to some outside seminar. 

We train each other. We learn on the job. That's 
the reality for people past their first month of this marvelous 
formal training course you heard about, and that makes 
experience all the more crucial . 

Yes, there are budget cuts, but what has been 
proposed here is a cut that will cut more in terms of numbers 
that the most pessimistic budget figures require. And it will 
cut to a large extent the attorneys who are — the office is 
least able to lose. 

I think you should look at those facts and that 
reality. 

We are willing to do what we can for belt-tightening 
and budget cutting. If you come to the Los Angeles office in 
the old State Building, and look where I work, you can see that 
I am not someone who is looking for luxuries and perks . Compare 
Los Angeles to San Francisco or Sacramento. You'll see that the 
[people in Los Angeles are willing to work in an economical 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 



59 
system. We've been doing that for 16 years, and we're willing 
to do whatever else we can, because we want to minimize — I'm 
not here saying, "Don't — don't close my office. Close San 
Francisco or Sacramento." 

We're willing to do anything we can to keep all of 
the offices open. 

But if there's — it's not a tough decision to close 
Los Angeles. It's an absolutely irrational one. And I think, 
looked at from every single perspective, that has to be the 
conclusion. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions? 

Now questions, we appreciate your testimony. 

MS. POWELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there anybody else here to 
testify? 

I don't see anyone, so Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I had a couple questions. 

One is on the comments of the last witness about the 
other option of reducing the size of each one, rather than 
eliminating any one. 

The second question is on, in your early comments, 
you said something about the mission of the office having been 
changed, but I didn't understand who changed it and why. Was it 
a budget matter? Was it a statutory change? Was it a Supreme 
Court decision? Is that what took you out of the federal 



I 



60 
courts? 

MS. LAETHEM: All — 

SENATOR PETRIS: All of the above? 

MS. LAETHEM: No. There's two or three questions 
mixed in there. 

When the office was first started, it was started to 
provide representation in District Court of Appeal cases 
throughout the state. There were offices in San Diego, 
Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

When the budget was cut in 1982, the San Diego office 
was eliminated at that point, and a lot of the people, 
obviously, have left the agency through layoffs, and there was 
attrition. 

And as the death penalty cases started really 
becoming more prominent, and becoming more plentiful, it became 
— let me explain one thing — and when they cut the budget of 
this office at the same time the new system was set up, which 
were appellate projects throughout the state, and these 
appellate projects started handling the Court of Appeal 
representation with private lawyers . 

There was one appellate project in — based in San 
Francisco, and their mission was to do some direct 
representation for death penalty cases, but also to recruit 
private attorneys to do death penalty cases; take up what this 
agency was no longer able to do. 

It became clear very shortly that there were a wealth 
of attorneys to do Court of Appeal cases. The pay was okay; the 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



61 
cases were not complex, and they were able to find lawyers. 

But as time went on, it became increasingly clear 
that we weren't finding attorneys to do the death penalty cases. 
I think I said when I came in, I think there were 25 
unrepresented people on Death Row. Now there are 86, and the 
cases are coming in at the rate of 40 a year. 

And so, when I was appointed, the Administration — 
and the Little Hoover Commission had been talking about this — 
but what they did was, they said, "Focus on death penalty cases. 
We've got plenty of lawyers in the state to do Court of Appeal 
cases. This agency needs to take over and do death penalty 
cases in the State of California." 

Now, just before I was appointed, there also had been 
a meeting with the Supreme Court, and the head of this office at 
the time, members of the federal bar. And at that time, a 
decision was made that in order to provide continuity of 
representation, anyone taking a case on direct appeal in the 
State of California had to agree that they would take the case 
on into federal court. 

When I came in, it became very clear to me that that 
was going to be a problem for us. Number one, we were taking 
appellate attorneys — and those were their skills as appellate 
lawyers — and we were saying, "Now you're going to go do 
litigation. " 

Number two, we were losing experienced attorneys into 
the realm of federal court, never to be seen again. 

I wanted at the very least to get paid for this work. 



62 

Anyone on the private level that was doing a federal case got 
paid by the federal government. And it was my feeling that if 
we had to do this, at least we should get paid. 

The payments — bills have been sent in. The 
payments were sporadic. The State of California has not in fact 
been reimbursed. In one case, we got a bill back that said 
rejected; in others, we've gotten paid. 

Well, at the same time that we were experiencing 
these problems, the California Appellate Project was recruiting 
attorneys to do cases and were experiencing the same problem. 
There were people that said, "Maybe I'd be willing to get into a 
case on direct appeal, but I don't want to be tied up for the 
next ten years in federal court . " 

I had meetings with the Supreme Court . I met with 
CAP; this was an ongoing thing. What we finally did as an 
agency was that we simply started not going into federal court. 
Right now, I think, we have five cases in federal court, and we 
haven't gone in, and we don't intend to go in on any more. 

And then very recently, and I really — I don't 
believe this has been announced as a policy yet, but I don't 
believe it's secret, because I wasn't told it was secret, but 
the Chief Justice — well, on June 1st, the Supreme Court took 
over the appointment and recruitment process. They took it away 
from CAP, and now they're going to try and recruit attorneys. 

They have made the decision — and I don't, as I 
said, believe it's a secret; although it may not yet be 
announced — that they are no longer going to require the 



63 
attorneys that they ' re appointing to go into federal court for 
the same reason: they can't get the attorneys that are willing 
to take on that burden. 

So, that is — I think that was one of your questions 
about how we got to federal court and where we got there. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let me ask you there, how does that 
square with trying to carry out your mission? 

If you have a case, a capital offense, and you know 
there's a good chance of making some progress by jumping into 
federal court, that avenue's been cut off. 

MS. LAETHEM: The — I believe that the mission of 
our agency is to represent people in the State of California at 
the state level. 

There are attorneys who are very qualified to go into 
federal court. Federal court requires a great deal of 
litigation. The attorneys in my office, with all due respect, 
they are — they are experienced. Ms. Powell is one of those 
experienced attorneys — but they're not litigators. 

And in the case that she mentioned that she ' s working 
on, we have had to hire an outside litigator to handle the 
evidentiary parts of this hearing. 

This is an agency that wasn ' t set up to do 
litigation. It wasn't trained. And the drain on our resources 
to do this would be tremendous . 

The fact of the matter is that we, due to the current 
philosophy of the California Supreme Court, we don't feel it is 
likely that we are going to get a great number of evidentiary 



64 
hearings at — at the state level . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Laethem, I'm going to 
interrupt in order to break for five minutes. 

MS . LAETHEM : I'm done . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm not. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We are breaking for five minutes. 
[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Committee will come to order. 

Senator Petris was asking questions. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm being importuned to go to a 
State Allocation Board meeting at 4:00, so, Mr. Chairman, I'll 
be very brief and ask that I be excused. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We were talking about the change of 
mission. 

MS. LAETHEM: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And the abandonment of participation 
above the state level into the federal . 

Isn't that a subversion of a lawyer's duty in a 
capital case? 

MS. LAETHEM: No, I don't think it is. 

The requirement that the lawyer go into federal court 
was something that was set up and decided as a result of this 
meeting for purposes of providing continuity of counsel, which 
ideally, is the way it should be. 

However, what experience proved to all of us was that 
in fact there was no continuity of counsel. We were trying to 



65 
avoid having to get new attorneys to come in to re- learn the 
cases and re-read the record. The fact was that the cases were 
outlasting the attorneys, and that we were unable to get 
attorneys who were willing to take on this responsibility, 
making the shift from state to federal court. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You mean within your own shop, or 
from outside? 

MS. LAETHEM: Both in and — well, outside, we were 
unable to get them. Within the shop, it was very difficult to 
take what had been a state appellate agency and try and turn 
them into litigators or federal litigators. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Didn't they do that for years in the 
past? 

It seems to me in past years, the controversy was, do 
we have a duty to take it further, not do we have the funds, or 
do we have enough people, or will there be continuity. 

MS. LAETHEM: What was actually happening in past 
years under a different Court is that we weren't getting to that 
decision because the cases were — we were winning. The cases 
were being reversed. 

It's just that when the cases started being affirmed 
that we were faced with this next step, the next responsibility. 

The other thing that we did find, and I have been a 
member of the Eastern District Recruiting Committee since before 
I was appointed to this position, is that while it is difficult 
to recruit, it was somewhat easier to recruit either for the 
federal level or for the state level. There were firms and 



66 
private attorneys who were experienced in federal court, and 
were willing to come in at the federal level. But on the other 
hand, they didn't want to deal with a direct appeal, and the 
reverse — the reverse was true. 

And so, as long as there is competent, qualified 
counsel to take over the case, no, I don't feel it would be — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, apparently there isn't. I 
think you said there are 86 on Death Row that have no counsel? 

MS. LAETHEM: Waiting direct appeal at the present 
time, yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What happens to them? 

MS. LAETHEM: We are — courts, through their 
recruitment process, CAP in the past through theirs, all of us 
that are involved at the private level have been trying to 
recruit attorneys . 

What we want to do is to be the agency that the state 
expected us to be, hoped we would be, and that is that we will 
eventually be able to take on the representation of the majority 
of these cases on direct appeal. 

SENATOR PETRIS: When? 

MS. LAETHEM: I believe that within the next two to 
three years, you will see changes in our ability to take on 
increased numbers of new cases. I believe that within the next 
five to six years, if this agency — if I'm right, and this 
agency is functioning with our vision of the way we want it to, 
with skilled, trained lawyers, the same lawyers, the same types 
of lawyers we have now but in a position where we have 



67 

maximized our resources, maximized our training budget, 
maximized the supervision that's necessary, we'll do it. 

One of the things — can I just — 

SENATOR PETRIS: How are you going to do it if 
they're increasing at the rate of 40 a year, and you're not 
increasing personnel? 

Are you predicting the end of the recession in six 
years? 

MS. LAETHEM: No, I am not. 

What I am predicting is that our agency will be in a 
position where the Court will be seeing — there is money out 
there for this representation. The Court has part of it; we 
have part of it. But where we will be in a position to say, 
"Look, we can provide the representation, " and they will be 
more than happy enough, since they're having trouble getting 
private attorneys, because they see that as a short-term 
solution anyway, to doing it. 

May I say — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Those fees are set by statute, 
aren't they? 

MS. LAETHEM: To pay the private attorneys? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. They're very low right now. 

MS. LAETHEM: It's $75 an hour. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yeah, I carried that 12 years ago. 

MS. LAETHEM: Yeah. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And it's still at $75 an hour. 
That's one reason you can't get attorneys — 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



68 

MS. LAETHEM: That's — 

SENATOR PETRIS: — on the outside; isn't it? 

MS. LAETHEM: That's one of the reasons. 

Another reason is that there — a lot of attorneys 
don't want to do capital work. 

If I might, because something you said keyed 
something in me, what we have found, using, for example, our 
Sacramento office, is that these attorneys that have been put 
through this training program, and are coming on board and doing 
capital work sooner, are effective. They are providing capital 
representation in a way that was never done before in this 
agency. 

It was controversial. There were people that — that 
felt that you needed to have been practicing at the Court of 
Appeal level for four or five or more years, until you cold come 
on to a death case. 

And we've proven that with supervision and with 
training, these attorneys are providing competent, effective 
representation. And if we can maximize these resources, and 
continue this program, and get the — and have the limited 
supervision we have spread out, spread out between the two 
offices we're talking about, we think that we can turn into the 
kind of agency that will be able to take these cases 

We've proven it in Sacramento, and we've proven it 
with our training program. There's no substitute, experience is 
very important. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Sacramento has 18 cases. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



69 

MS. LAETHEM: Sacramento has 13 cases right now; 7 of 
them new cases and — 

SENATOR PETRI S: That's not a very big dent in the 
86, it seems to me. 

MS. LAETHEM: Sacramento — 

SENATOR PETRIS: How are you going to make the dent 
without any additional people? 

MS. LAETHEM: We're — we're going to have a problem 
whichever way we go. We are losing people. But that's going to 
happen. The budget cuts are going to do that. 

And what we wanted to do was find a way to say, 
"Look, we're losing people. We can lose the haphazardly. We 
can cut a few here, a few there. We can reassign cases. We can 
become dislocated. Or, we can sit down and try and make some 
hard decisions about where the downside is going to be 
short-term, and what we can achieve long-term." 

I think that we are going to be in that place. I 
think we are going to get part of this money that — that is 
available out there for private counsel, because we're going to 
take this situation, and from this adversity, we're going to 
build a strong agency. 

My only, only goal, the only thing that — that I 
want for this agency is to provide the kind of representation 
that should be provided to the people we represent now and to 
the future clients. 

SENATOR PETRIS: In terms of percentage, how much was 
your budget cut last year? 



70 

MS. LAETHEM: Sixteen percent, approximately. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And for the coming year? 

MS. LAETHEM: We are anticipating and have been told 
to anticipate 20 percent. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Another 20 on top of the 16. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions? 

Well, I intend to vote myself to put your 
confirmation on the Floor. 

What we normally do then is, we wait a couple of 
weeks. Hopefully, in that period of time, maybe something can 
be done. If it can't be done, maybe you can make me understand 
it better. 

I hate to use the confirmation process to second- 
guess the budget cuts of every agency. Otherwise, we will 
never, ever do anything else. And it's, frankly, not our 
purview, unless the decision, you know, is a tremendously grave 
error . 

As I indicated, I frankly don't understand the 
closing of the L.A. office. I understand why you had to make a 
decision. I frankly don't understand the decision, because of 
the huge geographic area involved, the casework there, and the 
fact that there are two offices then in Northern California, 
which geographically doesn't seem to make much sense. 

And also the case of the senior attorneys in Los 
Angeles, that I would hope that some time in the decision making 
process was spent as to their value, because I was impressed by 
the fact that that's where, apparently, the senior attorneys are 



71 
in greater numbers . 

But in weighing it all in my own mind, I don't know 
if I've reached the point where I want to delay the confirmation 
process because of a budget cut, even though I don't really 
agree with the cut. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Before I go, I have a comment to 
make. I often do when there's dissension in the ranks, and 
people come forward and criticize decisions. 

I always ask the head of the agency to refrain from 
any retaliation. There are a lot of people who don't, but there 
are others who do. We get feedback later, and it's deplorable. 

So, I will ask you — 

MS. LAETHEM: I would not do that, and I will not do 
that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's fine. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

I think Ms . Laethem started by saying that she 
probably would be doing the same thing if she were in the same 
position. 

It was a very difficult decision, I'm sure, that she 
had to make. 

Nevertheless, we do hold, as our tradition, we do 
hold the confirmation on the Floor. 

The agency has been troubled in the past for reasons 
that I don't think have anything to do with Ms. Laethem, but 
there's a whole host of personnel questions that just absolutely 
plagued this agency for a number of years. I certainly don't 



72 
want to add to that. 

On the other hand, I very much appreciate the points 
that have been raised by the people in opposition. 

Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend approval of the 
nomination . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves confirmation 
be approved. 

Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris . Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll hold the roll open for 
Senator Petris . There ' s three votes . 

MS. LAETHEM: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Without objection, we will place 
this nomination independent of the other ones today for vote. 
It's that important, so it'll be on its own. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
4:03 P.M.] 

--00O00 — 



9 



i 
10 



11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



23 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



73 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of 
the State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; 
that the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel 
or attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand this <=>^ G) ~~ day of June, 1992. 



<r^EVELYN^J. MIZAK J> 
Shorthand Reporter 



205-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.60 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

11 00 J Street, Room B-15 

Sacramento, CA 9581 4 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 205-R when ordering. 



7 / 



S3u 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1992 
2:20 P. M. 



JUL 131882 



SAN FHMi.. •-,•- <i 



206-R 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

7 J 
8 
9 
10 

„ 

12 
13 

14 

j 

15 

ii 

16 

n ; 

18 
19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1992 
2:20 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



ii 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chair 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

SENATOR HENRY MELLO 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

RONALD L. CEDILLOS, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

MARYANN MALONEY 

St. Francis Medical Center 

BENJAMIN F. MONTOYA, Member 
State Board of Education 

JOE STEIN, President 
State Board of Education 

MELINDA MELENDEZ 

Association of California School Administrators 

ROBERTO VELLANOWETH, Chair 
Republican National Hispanic Assembly 

RALPH M. OCHOA, Member 
U.C. Board of Regents 

BILL GARCIA, State Advisor 
American G. I. Forum 
American Mexican War Mothers 



Ill 



1 

2 APPEARANCES I CONTINUED) 

3 HANK WILSON 

Gay Lesbian Youth Advocates 

4 

ken Mcpherson 

5 Forgotten Scouts 

6 DONALD W. MURPHY, Director 
Department of Parks and Recreation 

7 

ROBERT HAM 

8 Off-road Vehicle Legislative Coalition 

9 LYNN SADLER 

Planning and Conservation League 

10 

11 



13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

20 

| 

21 

22 J 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 j; 

28 



RICHARD A. WILSON, Director 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 



12 DON JEFFERIES, Former Employee 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 



DENNIS O'BRIEN, President 

California Department of Forestry Employees Association 

JENNIFER JENNINGS 

Planning and Conservation League 

JAMES HAMILTON 
California Trout 



10 

11 

12 
13 

_ 



16 

19 
20 

: 






IV 



?dre 



Proceedings 



Governor s Appointees ; 



6 RONALD L. CEDILLOS, 
Board of Trustees 
California State University 1 

i Background and Experience 1 

9 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

=.~Z.<ZZZ -7.Z 2 



MARYANN MALONEY 

St. Francis Medical Center 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 



Solution to Cutting Courses Dae to 
I5 =u::e: C_.= 



Development of Private Sector 

Partnering Programs 4 



Financial Goal 5 

Stateaient in Support by SENATOR BEVERLY 5 

Motion to Confirm 6 

Committee Action : 



BENJAMIN F. MONTOYA, Member 

State Board of Education 



-. B = c:<grrur.- ar.c ixrrr:5.-.: = 



State Scare cf Ecucaticr. r 

MELINDA MELENDEX 

Asscciaticr. r f Califcmia 5 c ~ c cl A ±ri r. i s t r = t r r s 5 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



ROBERTO VELLANOWETH, Chairman 
Republican National Hispanic Assembly 

Question by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Background of Organization 

RALPH OCHOA, Member 
Board of Regents 
University of California 

BILL GARCIA, Legislative Advocate 
American G.I. Forum 

Witnesses with Concerns: 

HANK WILSON 

Gay and Lesbian Youth Advocates 

Experience with Brigg Initiative 

Message Being Given to Young People 

Omission of Sexual Orientation 
Message 

Need Role Model for Entire Community 

Project Ten in Los Angeles 

Letter from Teenager on Sexuality 

Gays and Lesbians Different from Other 
Minority Populations 

ken Mcpherson 

Forgotten Scouts 

Background of Organization 

Opposition to Nomination 

Nominee ' s Service with Boy Scouts of 
America 

Active Discrimination against Homosexuals 
by Boy Scouts 

Nominee's Support for 10 Percent of School 
Population that Is Homosexual 



10 

11 

11 
12 



13 
13 
13 

13 
14 
17 
17 

18 

19 
19 
20 

20 

20 

21 



VI 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 ! ! 
6 

» ! 

• ; ; 

I 
9 

I 
10 

11 

•I 

13 

14 | 

■ 

1 
16 

17 

18 I 

,9 

21 ; 

22 
23 

24 || 

II 
25 

26 

ji 

I 

27 I 

I 

28 



Urge Opposition to Confirmation if Nominee 
Believes Homosexuality Is a Choice 

Request to Know School Board's Reaction to 
Boy Scout Programs in Schools 

Request for Public Refutation of BSA 
Discrimination Policy 

Response by ADMIRAL MONTOYA re: 

Role Model in Community 

Association with Boy Scouts 

Resignation after Move to Bay Area 

Abhorence of Intolerance 

Prepared to Deal with Issues before Board 
with Open Eyes, Open Ears, on Case-by-case 
Basis 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Health Curriculum Framework 

In Process of Taking Testimony 

Bottom Line: Provide as Much Information 
for Informed Decisions 

Bilingual Education 

Need for English to be Acquired and Used 

Programs Should Be Geared to Facilitate 
Transition to All English 

Place for Bilingual Education 

Number of Latinos Attaining Rank of 
Admiral or General in Military 

Position at PG&E 

Comparison between Military and Private 
Sector Competition 

Military Is Meritocracy 



21 
22 
22 

23 
23 
24 
24 

25 

25 
26 

26 
27 
27 

28 
28 

28 
29 

29 
30 



Vll 



Need to Make Changes at Entry Level 

to Reflect Demographics 30 

Use of "Magic Pen" to Solve Problems 31 

Need for Structural Changes 32 

More Control in Local Hands 33 

Motion to Confirm 33 

Committee Action 34 



DONALD W. MURPHY, Director 
9 Parks and Recreation Department 34 

10 Statements by SENATOR MELLO in Support 34 

11 Background and Experience 35 

12 Questions by SENATOR MELLO re: 

13 Dealing with Budget Cuts in Department 36 

14 List of Persons in Support 37 

15 Witnesses in Support: 

16 BILL GARCIA, Legislative Advocate 
American G. I. Forum, LULAC, RNHA, 

17 War Mothers, and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 38 

18 J ROBERT HAM 

Off-road Vehicle Legislative Coalition 38 

19 

LYNN SADLER 

20 Planning and Conservation League 39 
i 

21 j Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

22 Urban Parks and Recreation 39 

23 New Program for Urban Communities 40 

24 Motion to Confirm 41 

25 Committee Action 42 

26 !, 
27 

28 



Vlll I 



1 

2 RICHARD A. WILSON, Director 

Forestry and Fire Protection 42 

3 

Background and Experience 42 



9 



10 

11 



Witness with Concerns: 



DON JEFFRIES, Former Employee 

6 Forestry and Fire Protection 45 

7 Lack of Progress in Affirmative Action 45 

8 Concern about Person Serving as 

Chief of Human Rights in Department 46 



Personal Qualifications and Experience 46 

Sanctions by State Personnel Board 47 



Request for Assurance that Issues of 

12 Affirmative Action not Be Overlooked 47 

13 Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

14 Policies on Hiring 48 

li 

15 Review of Procedure 48 

16 Elevation of Two Women in Department 48 

17 Investigation into Case Raised by 

MR. JEFFRIES 49 

18 

19 
20 

21 

22 | 

23 j; 

DENNIS O'BRIEN, President 

24 California Department of Forestry Employees 
Association 51 

25 

JENNIFER JENNINGS 
26 Planning and Conservation League 52 

27 

28 !' 



Timetable for Action 49 

Response by MR. JEFFRIES 49 

Response by MR. WILSON 50 

Urban Advisory Council 50 

Witnesses in Support: 



Vlll 






Motion to Confirm 53 

Committee Action 53 

Termination of Proceedings 54 

Certificate of Reporter 55 



l 

2 JIM HAMILTON 

California Trout 52 

3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

9 

,0 

11 

12 
13 

14 i| 
15 
16 

1 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



IX 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

8 

i 

9 

l! 
10 
I 

.3 

II 

14 ; ! 

15 I! 

li 

16 

■ 
17 



JIM HAMILTON 
California Trout 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

Termination of Proceedings 

Certificate of Reporter 



52 
53 
53 
54 
55 



18 






19 

20 

21 I 

22 [ 

23 j 

ll 

24 

n 

25 |! 
» j 

I 

27 

n * 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 

12 J 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 

i 

i 

20 i 

i 
i 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



1 
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Governor's appointments, we have 
four persons nominated by the Governor for various offices. 
First will be Ronald L. Cedillos, Member of the Board of 
Trustees of the Cal . State University. 

Our procedure normally is to tell us why we should 
vote for your confirmation. What are your qualifications? 

MR. CEDILLOS: Sure, Senator. Thank you for allowing 
me to be here. 

I want to just kind of briefly describe my 
background, which is probably a little unconventional even by 
California standards. I was a former professional athlete for a 
number of years, a motion picture actor in the early to 
mid- '80s. I acquired a high-tech aerospace testing firm that I 
developed into a multi-million dollar company down in Southern 
California. 

During the last twelve years, I've sat on at least 
most of the major philanthropic boards in — in Southern 
California, some of the larger ones that create programs for 
primarily youth down in Southern California. I also sat on two 
university boards: Pepperdine University and California State 
University of — California State University, Long Beach, Board 
of Governors. 

I've been a guest lecturer at USC, and I've been 
— have been invited, although I did not accept, the invitation 
to become an adjunct Associate Professor there as well. 






2 

Education, in my mind, is certainly held probably to 
the highest standard of responsibility and importance in this 
state. It's an issue that — that I consider to be very 
important in the state as well, particularly given what the 
University system is facing today. 

I think that I bring a unique perspective and a 
willingness, and, I think, ability to facilitate debate on 
problem-solving and developing consensus to develop or bring 
about the compliances that are needed for issues facing the 
system today. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let's see, you were a professional 
athlete from 1973 to 1980? 

MR . CEDILLOS : That ■ s correct . 

SENATOR PETRIS: You were in motion pictures during 
the same period of time? 

MR. CEDILLOS: That's correct. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did you consider running for 
Governor? 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. CEDILLOS: I would be happy to be a Trustee. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: You could be making these 

23 

appointments, you know. 

Does any Member have a question? 

25 

Is there anyone in the audience that desires to 
testify, either in support or in opposition to this nomination? 

MS . MALONEY : Hi , thank you . 

28 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 



3 

I'm Mary Maloney of St. Francis Medical Center in 
Linwood. 

I'm here to ask for your confirmation of Ron Cedillos 
to the California State University Board of Trustees. 

I have come to know Ron in my three-and-a-half years 
at St. Francis. He has been very supportive of our efforts 
there. He is well aware of health care issues and concerned 
about emergency departments being an available resource in Los 
Angeles County. 

Most importantly, in working with Ron, I have learned 
that he is a leader in the community, respected by many in Los 
Angeles County, a team player. He knows how to analyze a 
problem and solve it . 

Because of these and many other favorable attributes, 
I ask that you confirm Ron Cedillos to the California State 
University Board of Trustees. 

Any questions? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

Any questions of the witness? I guess not. 



20 

MS. MALONEY: Thank you. 



21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATOR PETRIS: Any other witnesses either for or 
against? 

Mr. Cedillos, last year because of the budget cuts, 
in spite of an increase in student fees, we had to wipe out 
4,000 courses. I'm sure you're familiar with that. 

MR. CEDILLOS: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: When that happens, students already 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



4 
average five years in completing what's supposed to be a four- 
year course. Now we're imposing more cuts and increasing fees. 
I don't know how many courses are going to be eliminated this 
time, along with a lot of professors. 

Do you have a solution in mind? 

MR. CEDILLOS: I don't know that I have a solution 
that could be answered briefly here, Senator. However, I do 
have some thoughts and ideas about it. 

In the short time that I've been on the Board of 
Trustees, one of the things that I have attempted to do, and so 
far have been fairly successful at, is developing private sector 

partnering with the University system. 

i 1 

In other words, developing private funds for programs 

and capital investments within the University system. 

Another thing that I've done is, I've put together a 
team of CEOs of major corporations throughout the state. It's 
in formation right now, being headed by a CEO of one of the 
larger public companies based in California, where they are 
going to take upon themselves to assist in compensation at 
several levels for executives within the University system. 

That is important because we — as we go through the 
budget problems — and I don't think it's going to go away this 
year. I think it's going to be around for a while — we still 
have to maintain the competitiveness on — on how and who, the 
quality of people that we hire to play key roles within the 
system. 

So, those are some of the things that I've already 



5 

begun to do. 

2 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's your financial goal? 

3 

MR. CEDILLOS: The financial goal, rather than a 

4 

dollar figure, in my mind, is to maintain a commitment to the 

5 

Master — the Master Plan that's been developed. Access to — 

6 

to the University system in California has been available and 

around as far as I can remember, and I'm a native Californian. 

8 

Maintaining that access is absolutely paramount in my mind, 

9 

without sacrificing the quality. 

10 

The answers to the problems are not simple, but I 

believe that there are answers there on how we can minimize the 

12 

impacts that we — that we're going to deal with within the next 

13 

year. 

14 

SENATOR PETRIS: Your group of CEOs, I assume, is 
going to try to raise money; is that right? 
16 MR. CEDILLOS: That's correct. 

SENATOR PETRIS: To help compensate people? 

18 MR. CEDILLOS: That's correct. 

19 SENATOR PETRIS: At this time, you don't know the 



20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



specific fixed goal, and how much it's going to take? 

MR. CEDILLOS: No, in fact, I just went on the Board 
of Trustees about six months ago, and it took me about three 
months to get them put together. They just have started. 

SENATOR PETRIS: All right. 

Any questions by the Members? Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Mr. Chairman, let me just first say 
we know Mr. Cedillos in the Long Beach community to be a 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



6 
gentleman of integrity and ability, a fine gentleman and fine 
appointment. 

I'm pleased to move the approval. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Okay, we have a motion. 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Three to zero. 

i 

SENATOR PETRIS: That means your nomination will be 
recommended favorably to the Floor. 

MR. CEDILLOS: Thank you very much, Senators. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Good luck. 
MR. CEDILLOS: Thank you. 

[Thereupon the Senate Rules 
Committee acted upon legislative 
agenda items . ] 
SENATOR PETRIS: All right, we're back to Governor's 
appointees. The second one is Mr. Benjamin — Admiral Benjamin 
Montoya for the State Board of Education. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



7 

Once an Admiral, always an Admiral; right? 

ADM. MONTOYA: I can't deny it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're retired, but it's proper to 
call you Admiral. 

ADM. MONTOYA: It is, but I prefer Ben, PG&E style. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Okay. 

Do you want to tell us why we should vote for your 
confirmation? 

ADM. MONTOYA: Well, first and foremost, after a long 
career in the Navy and now with PG&E, the one thing I would have 
liked to have done in government, it's this appointment in 
working on a board that is involved with K through 12 education. 

I'm a native Californian, came up at a time when 
education was a little different than it was now, the issues 
were a little bit different than they are now. I've seen the 
whole range of some discrimination growing up. I've seen the 
days when speaking Spanish in school was punishable. 

I've seen the system evolve, but nonetheless, not 
withstanding all that, being raised in a family that had a 
tremendous faith in the country's principles, I credit all the 
success that I've had to that fundamental education that I got 
early, not only through the K through 12 system in California, 
but later on through the secondary schools I attended. 

And it would be my — my goal as a member of the 
State Board of Education to bring that historical experience and 
try to deal with an issue that's very, very difficult in our 
state, particularly with the ways the demographics have changed 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



8 
so dramatically in the past 10-15 years. 

So, I think I bring some unique qualifications, not 
only historically, but my own education, and my own perspective 
to — to this issue. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Any questions from the Members? 

SENATOR MELLO : He ' s a good man . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does anyone here desire to testify 
in support? 

MR. STEIN: Chairman Petris, Members of the 
Committee, I'm Joe Stein, President of the State Board of 
Education. 

I'm here to ask your favorable action on the 
nomination of Ben Montoya to the State Board of Education. 

Considering the difficult fiscal crisis that we are 
suffering at this time, I think it's important to mention 
another attribute that Ben brings to the State Board, and that 
is business acumen, personnel management, and a desire for 
accountability for the monies that are available to the school 
system. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: All right. 

Any other witnesses in support? 

MS. MELENDEZ: Good afternoon. I'm Melinda Melendez 
with the Association of California School Administrators. 

Our association has had the pleasure and honor of 
working with Mr. Montoya for the last year, since he was 
appointed to the State Board. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



9 

We attend the State Board of Education meetings every 
month, and in that role I've had the opportunity to observe and 
interact with Board members on a large range of significant 
issues that are of importance to the entire K-adult education 
system. 

We believe that Mr. Montoya has already demonstrated 
his strong commitment to a very positive model, role model, if 
you will, in education in his short tenure on the Board. And we 
have been very impressed with his fairness and conscientiousness 
in working through all of the very complex issues that come 
before the Board. We have found him to also conduct himself in 
a very dignified and responsible manner, which we believe is 
appropriate to a Governor's appointee. We believe that's a very 
important attribute for someone who's in a serious policy-making 
position at the state level. 

So, he has earned our confidence and trust as we 
worked with him this last year. 

The last point I'd like to make is that it has been 
very critical for us and for the other organizations that 
observe the work and work with the Board that Mr. Montoya has 
displayed a very moderating influence on the Board during a very 
difficult last year. 

He, as I mentioned, is committed to a positive role 
on this Board, and he continues to keep the Board focused on 
what is appropriately the Board's business. And I — as we 
know, as we observe it, he continues to do this despite the fact 
that other Board members continue to divert time and attention 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



10 
from the Board's business into repeated negative criticism and 
bickering, which does not help us at all. 

So, I strongly urge your aye vote on this 
confirmation, and I hope that we have expressed to you how 
strongly we believe he is an important member of this Board. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

Any other witnesses in support? 

MR. VELLANOWETH : Senator Mello, Senator Beverly, 
Senator Petris, ladies and gentlemen, may name is Roberto 
Vellanoweth. I'm the Chairman of the Republican National 
Hispanic Assembly. 

I would like to speak on behalf of Ben Montoya and 
his confirmation. He has been in our community a long time, and 
he is a role model in our community for a long time. We would 
like to keep him as a Rear Admiral in our community for a long, 
long time, and also as a Board of Education member, he is role 
model. 

He is culturally sensitive. I have seen him in 
action. I have seen him involved with our kids in our 
community, and with that involvement comes a sense of pride to 
our kids . 

With his involvement, the community has gained an 
individual that is going to be a role model for a long time. 

I really encourage your support for his confirmation. 
Thank you very much. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Excuse me. 

Can you tell me a little bit about the National 



11 

1 

Assembly? Is that a conglomeration of a lot of groups? 

2 

MR. VELLANOWETH : The Republican National Hispanic 
3 

Assembly is a political organization. It is one of the 

4 

organizations that I personally belong to. I also belong to the 
5 

G.I. Forum; I also have LULAC, League of United Latin American 
6 

Citizens, membership. 
7 || 

In this particular case, I'm representing the RNHA. 
8 

However, he has been involved in all of our organization, not 

9 

only as a member, but as a volunteer and working very heavily in 
10 

our community. 
11 ji 

I really encourage your support for his confirmation 



12 

13 ji 
,4 j 

15 j 

16 

17 

I 
18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 ' 



based on that. He's a real role model to our community. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

MR. VELLANOWETH: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Next witness in support, Mr. Ochoa. 

MR. OCHOA: Mr. Chairman, Senators, Members, my name 
is Ralph Ochoa. I'm a member of the Board of Regents for U.C. 

I've had the pleasure on a personal basis to know 
Admiral Montoya for a number of years, and I just wanted to 
share that very briefly, that I subscribe to the commendations 
that have been prefaced before my coming to the table. 

He certainly is a person that the entire community of 
California is very proud of the Admiral. He is being a role 
model for the Midshipmen at the Academy, and certainly in his 
career, getting to be an Admiral, and now as an executive with 
PG&E. 

It ' s something that he ' s committed and dedicated to 



12 

l 

excellence and quality, and those are the kinds of things that 
2 

have made California great. 
3 

I think his leadership on the State Board of 

4 

Education with your confirmation will continue that kind of 

5 

dedication, and I urge your aye vote on the confirmation. 
6 

Thank you. 
7 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 
8 

Any others in support? Come on forward. 
9 

MR. GARCIA: Senator Mello, other Members of the 
10 j 

Rules Committee, my name is Bill Garcia. I'm here representing 
ll 

the American G.I. Forum, and the American Mexican War Mothers. 

12 

We're here in support of Ben Montoya. We've known 

13 

Ben for quite a number of years . He ' s been very active in our 

14 I 

community; in fact, he's a member of the American G.I. Forum, 

15 

and we've worked with him in that capacity as well as other 

16 

organizations that he belongs to and is part of. He ' s a very 

17 

active member in the overall state community, as well as in the 

18 

Hispanic community. 
19 

I ' 11 just repeat what Roberto Vellanoweth and Ralph 

20 

lOchoa said, and that is he's a role model for not just our 

21 

community, but for the entire state community. We urge that 

22 

this Committee support his confirmation. 

23 

Thank you very much. Are there any questions? 

24 

SENATOR PETRIS: Any questions? I guess not. You've 

25 | 

made your case. 

26 

MR. GARCIA: Thank you. 
27 

SENATOR PETRIS: Any other witnesses in support? 

28 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



13 
Anyone who desires to testify in opposition? 

MR. WILSON: My name is Hank Wilson with Gay and 
Lesbian Youth Advocates . 

I made communications with your Committee that I 
wanted to testify as a concerned person, a person with concerns, 
not in opposition and not in support. 

The gay and lesbian community does not know 
Mr. Montoya. We are recently emerged. We talked about changing 
demographics in this state in the last 10-15 years. 

I was a teacher during the Brigg initiative. My 
professional livelihood was put on the line. 

I've been attacked by a group of five young people, 
probably either in high school or young guys just out of high 
school. I had about five stitches in the emergency room. 

The messages that I heard back then during the Brigg 
initiative are still happening. There's forces in this state 
that are not helping us deal with anti-gay violence, that are 
not recognizing that young gays and lesbians are in the schools, 
that young people questioning about their own sexuality are in 
the schools. I say questioning. 

And my concern — any my concern to Admiral Montoya 
and to this Committee is, what is the message we give these 
young people? 

In the past, mostly we haven't given a message about 
sexual orientation. We have omitted a message When we omit a 
message, what does that do to young people? It leaves them with 
questions, it leaves them with uncertainty, it leaves them 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



14 
isolated. It leaves them without support. Some of this 
information or support can be life saving. 

Will this change? Hopefully, it will, and I think 
that's a challenge. 

When we heard about Mr. Montoya being a role model 
for the entire state community, and I've heard — I've heard 
that today and I've heard it from other people who have told me 
that Mr. Montoya is open-minded and fair, we need — I'm talking 
about we, meaning all of us — role models who will stand up to 
prejudice, stand up to stereotypes, stand up to — to myths, and 
deal with some of these issues. 

I have a loving family. My mother is out of a 
nursing home right now because I'm still a member of my family. 
I am home every weekend to help my dad take care of my mother, 
who's disabled. 

If I had been rejected by my family, not given 
support, we would be weaker, my mom would not be at home; she 
would not be able to be taken care of. 

I look to the time because of an institution, and 
that institution is a key one, which you're making a commitment 
to, that is education, that we will — we will bite the bullet 
and deal with the reality that sexual orientation is something 
that should be dealt with fairly and accurately, and understand 
that there are people that would be upset, but not be paralyzed, 
not be able to deal with it. 

The history in this state in terms of the educational 
role has been one of a small group of us to stand up for the 



15 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



rights and the interests of our young people, to raise 
questions. A lot of the professional groups have take positions 
in our support, but they haven't given leadership. It's been up 
to us. So, we — we raise those questions. 

The current health framework, which is before the 
State Board of Education at this time, has already generated 
polarization in this state. And I — and I'm disappointed at 
that, but I'm not surprised. The messages that are being hit 
against us are no different than they were when I was teaching 
in 1978, when the Brigg initiative was put on the ballot. 

We need to break the isolation of young — young 
people. I'm talking about young gays and lesbians in the 
schools. We need to break the rejection, and the hostility. We 
need to own and acknowledge that there's anti-gay violence. It 
is happening. It's growing. It's epidemic in our community. I 
don't know if everyone's aware of it; I'm assuming that many 
people aren't. 

Youth suicide is a major problem. Research studies 
have shown that young gays and lesbians attempt suicide and 
commit suicide in greater numbers than their peers. 

Our young people have a very severe drug abuse and 
alcohol problem, and part of that goes with the rejection and 
the isolation. 

In terms of — my final points are this. I'm 
concerned about all young people, not just gays and lesbians and 
young people questioning their — their sexual orientation. I'm 
concerned about the future parents of this state. Every young 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



16 
person is a future parent, and the challenge is, will we have 
strong families; will we have families that are informed about 
sexual orientation issues, respectful, understanding and 
supportive? Or, will we continue the traditional fear, the 
traditional ignorance, the traditional rejection, traditional 
hostility of parents to their kids? 

You know, San Francisco and Los Angeles, both cities 
have a large runaway youth — large numbers of runaways . 
They're called runaways. Many of these people are push-outs. 
Their parents were never taught about sexual orientation. They 
grew up either ignorant with no mention of it, or they believed 
myths and stereotypes . 

How do we change that? If there's any institution in 
this state that has the responsibility in this, it's the 
schools. It's a tough one, and we've got — we've got to — we 
want a commitment that we're not afraid to deal with it, and 
that we're ready to give — give support on this issue. 

That's what my concern is, and that's why I'm 
testifying today. 

And I hope — I hope that the role model — and I 
think there's great hope anytime there's a new appointee to the 
State Board of Education — we need role models on that State 
Board. We need role models to deal with the reality of this 
diverse state, this increasingly diverse state. And we may have 
an opportunity, it's going to be tough, but it's going to be — 
it's going to be controversial. 

The script — and this is what is so distressing. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



17 
The script is no different than when I was teaching in 1978. 
The script is the same. Unfortunately so, the suicides, the 
anti-gay violence, the homophobic attacks. We need that 
support . 

I have — I have a document here from the State 
Department of Education, which has resource material. And in 
it, in this document, there are two references to Project Ten in 
Los Angeles . And these are put out by the State Department of 
Education. 

Hopefully — hopefully, you're supportive of this 
kind of supplementary resource material to give teachers that 
went through college, got Ph.D.s, got Masters, and they weren't 
taught about sexual orientation. Yet, we have a big gap. 

Once we decide there's a — a goal, how are we going 
to do that? Who's going to make up this gap? It's a big 
challenge. 

I would share this with you, and I will read this — 
I want to read this into the record. 

"Dear Gay and Lesbian Youth Advocacy 
Council: 

"My name is ... 
and I'll omit the name, 

"I am 17 years old. I'm just coming 
to terms with my sexuality. 

"I would like any information 
you could send me about gay teens 
and survey results, teen groups in 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



18 
my area that you may know of, or any 
help you can give on gay living and 
gay people. 

"I want to learn anything I can 
about who I am now that I know. Is 
there anyone I can write to who is 
gay and who is a teen? 

"I am waiting for your 
information anxiously. Thank you 
for any help you could give." 
The person signed it. It says: 

"P.S. Please keep my address 
strictly confidential as I am very 
much closeted. " 
The challenge is, if there's anything — if the 
schools cannot give information — they have in the past, and 
they have failed in this role on sexual orientation, what 
institution will do this? 

And here we are, in the last 10-15 years, a recent — 
we've always been around, but recently we are an emerged 
minority. We're different from other minorities in a special 
way. That is, our parents by and large are mostly not gay and 
lesbian. 

Other minorities — Hispanics, blacks, Asians — have 
parents who are also of that -- of the same race, and there's a 
different kind of sensitivity, different kind of support. We're 
a unique minority in that support. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



19 

And we are calling for some new understanding, some 
new acknowledgment . 

We communicated with Mr. Montoya through a letter 
back in March, and we received a letter a couple weeks ago. 

And we appreciate — appreciate that you're 
communicating with us. We look forward to working with you in 
the future in many different ways, because I feel like you are a 
respected role model , and maybe you can be someone that can give 
some new levity and some new momentum to solving problems . 

Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You may want to share those 
recommendations with all the Board members, if you haven't 
already. Have you considered that, writing to all the Board 
members? 

MR. WILSON: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

Any other witnesses? Come forward. 

MR. McPHERSON: My name is Ken McPherson. I'm with a 
less than year-old organization called Forgotten Scouts, a 
national organization composed of gay people who, at one time in 
their lives, have been Scouts: Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, 
Explorers, volunteers, den mothers, parents within Scouts. Many 
gay people are parents. 

Hank very broadly described many of the issues of 
concern generically within the lesbian and gay community. 

We have to specifically ask a few questions, and it's 
for this reason: with regret, I must oppose the nomination at 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



20 
this point. 

We've seen two resumes for Admiral Montoya at this 
point. The first one included the information that he has served 
on the Executive Council of the Boy Scouts of America. The 
second resume, that was deleted; for what reason, we don't know. 

We need to make it clear that the issue with the Boy 
Scouts on the front page of the Examiner today is a cutting line 
issue that deals with young people. When we've heard the 
discussion of what a role model is, and a person who supports 
the entire community, we are forced to ask very specific 
questions, and that's what I am here to do, to encourage you, as 
Members, to ask very specific questions s to the general issues 
that Hank has outlined. 

Within the Boy Scouts of American, in 1978, they 
adopted a policy which specifically and actively discriminates 
against known or avowed — their language — homosexuals. You 
cannot be a member of the Boy Scouts, you cannot be a volunteer, 
you cannot be a den mothers, you cannot be an Assistant Scout 
Master, if it is known that you're gay. 

You may be gay. There are many, many, many gay 
people within Scouting, and we can prove that very easily from 
our own membership. 

The issue is, the Boy Scouts insists that you lie 
about that fact. If you're willing to remain in the closet, 
iplay the game, promote the very things that lead to suicide in 
lesbian and gay youth in our community, you may participate in 
Scouting. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



21 
I don't know Admiral Montoya. We have not discussed 
these issues. But we think it's very important that before we 
have a new member of the California State School Board, when 
people are using, endorsing, phrases like "supportive of the 
entire community", find out truly whether he in fact is 
supportive of that ten percent of the California school system, 
which is lesbian and gay or bisexual. 

So, I strongly urge you to ask him, because of his 
leadership in the Boy Scouts — they took the line on this, not 
us — such questions as this: What is your current relationship 
with the Boy Scouts of America? What is your past relationship 
with the Boy Scouts of America? What is your specific 
understanding of who the lesbian and gay community is? 

Are we a minority, as some of the other minorities 

I 

| that have been discussed, or in fact do we as individuals choose 

to be homosexuals? Because the answer a person gives in that 

particular question is going to be particularly telling. 

If he believes, in fact, that people choose to be 

'I 

[gay, we would strongly urge your opposition for his admission on 

ji 
the California State School Board. That means, by definition, 

personally he thinks as many as ten percent of the people 

participating in the state school system are less than adequate. 

In fact, the language of the Boy Scouts currently — 

now, we're talking about within the past couple of weeks — is 

people are, by definition, bad role models, are antithetical to 

traditional family values. In fact, suddenly, the BSA, who, on 

the front page of their magazine, has said: "For All Boys", is 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



22 
now, quoting Blake Lewis, their statesman, saying "The Boy 
Scouts is not for everyone . " 

I understand that these are questions that many 
people within Scouting disagree with, because we receive phone 
calls on a daily basis from Scouters saying, "How can we 
disagree with the national leadership without losing our 
charters?" Because that is currently what is going on. If you, 

within the Boy Scouts of America, oppose their policy, you lose 

i 

your charter, case closed. "We will not discuss this issue." 

So, I regret that we must very specific in asking 

Admiral Montoya how should the State School Board react to a 

private organization — that ' s what the Boy Scouts say they are 

— who currently works within the schools, both on a volunteer 

basis — they have a program called "Learning for Life" within 

the schools during school hours and after school hours . 

Certainly, most of us participated in Scouting meetings. 

What does the state — how does the State School 

j 

Board react? How is it appropriate to react with a private 
jj 
organization that actively discriminates against people based on 

sexual orientation? 

We have to ask you, Admiral Montoya, would you 
ij 
publicly refute the BSA policy of active discrimination of 

'i 

people based on sexual orientation in terms of your relationship 
with the School Board? 

We look forward to the answers to these questions . 
We very much wish to change — we want to accept you. 
! Everything we've heard about you is wonderful, and if it extends 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



23 
over to this area, we will be glad to join in support. 

And if it does not extend into this area, you 
seriously have to question putting a person on the School Board 
who blanketly supports an organization that says ten percent of 
the population of California school children and parents are 
immoral and bad role models. 

Thank you for listening. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Hold on. 

Any questions of this witness? I guess not. Thank 
you. 

Any other witnesses? 

Okay, you get the last word. Respond to any of the 

comments made by any of the witnesses. 

ij 

ADM. MONTOYA: Well, I would like to respond 
generally. 

First of all, as a role model, I don't think a person 

imposes himself on any given community to be their role model. 

Communities select you as a role model for whatever attribute. 

It can be on ethnic grounds; it can be on gender grounds; it can 
I 
be a long any number of grounds. So, all these who have called 

me a role model, I don't use that phrase because it's not for me 

to use. 

Secondly, my association with the Boy Scouts has been 

interesting. I was a Scout as a very, very young person. My 

experiences were not particularly good at the time, primarily 

because of economic status, and, to a degree, I think, the 

ethnicity that I represented, it wasn't totally accepted. And I 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



24 
felt it, but didn't realize it until later. 

Interestingly enough, when I came to Sacramento as a 
retired Navy Admiral, I was approached by the local Boy Scout 
chapter. I was approached by a number of groups representing 
PG&E, a very respected company in the state and in the area, to 
be on various boards . 

And I had a long discussion with the Boy Scout folks 
before I joined them, expressing my concerns of years ago, and 
asking if the Scouts had learned to reach out to parts of the 
community where they weren't traditionally involved in Boy 
Scouts . 

But in my case, because I know something about 
Mexican-Americans, that's where I focused, I went on the Board 
with the proviso that, to the extent that the Boy Scouts 
weren't, in my judgment, doing a job they should be doing in all 
areas, particularly in the area which I'm familiar and 
interested, that I would not be interested in staying with them. 

So, with that proviso, I joined, and we did some 
work, began some outreach programs in the Hispanic community. 

Since I left Sacramento and went to the Bay Area in a 
new position, I resigned that affiliation with the Boy Scouts, 
mainly because of the geographical separation. And therefore, I 
currently have no association with them formally. 

But fundamentally, I'd say what I just said, because 
I believe that people should be judged on who they are and no 
further, whether in a workplace, school place, and one must — 
in fact, I frankly abhor intolerance, physical or mental. One 



25 
person against another, one nation against another, over 
differences. 

With that as a background, I'm prepared to deal with 
the issues that come before the State Board of Education with 
open eyes, open ears, and deal with them on a case by case 
basis. I don't know everything about everything, and I think 
that fact alone prepares me to listen to information that will 
come before us, to address the issues as they come up, with the 
latest information that's available in this day and age, not of 
30 years ago, or 20 years ago, but this day and age, and deal 
with it accordingly. 

That ' s my general response to the last two speakers . 

And I want to thank all those who spoke on my behalf. 
I want to assure them that I will do what I can to merit their 
very, very fine comments. 

Thank you very much. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Any questions? 

Let me ask a couple with respect to the last two 
witnesses. One of them mentioned the health curriculum 
framework that's under development now, and asked if there would 
be an appropriate flow of information to the high school 
students regarding sexual orientation, and a factual and 
appropriate discussion of AIDS prevention, of sexual 

24 

orientation, birth control. 

25 

I know that's very controversial. We've had bills on 

26 

that that get either defeated or vetoed by the Governor. 

27 

Senator Hart, you know, carried the bill for years to provide 

28 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



26 
education along those lines. 

How do you think that would fit into your program 
relating to the health curriculum framework? , 

ADM. MONTOYA: Well, I think that that issue, it is 
controversial. And one of the difficulties in the State of 
California is that we have much autonomy in the way the state 
school system is organized, along local school boards. They 
have considerable to say about what and when things are taught, 
at what age, to what degree. That's what this article was 
about. The whole article's about the local parents have a 
different view of the school, of what's being taught. 

We're in the process of taking testimony. I've been 
a recipient of much mail regarding those frameworks. 

I, quite frankly, have not in my own mind come to the 
conclusion as to what total position I'll take, because there is 
so much to listen to. That'll be before us within the month. 

I'm looking for, quite frankly, my bottom line will 
be that we provide as much as information at the right time in a 
young person's life so that they can make informed decisions. 
I'm a believer that education of whatever type in a free 
society, education and information go together so that people 
can make informed decisions. To try to do otherwise is to deny 
the fact that education or information will get to people in 
some other form, and maybe not as good a form as it can be done 
in the formal fashion. 

We have our work cut out for us . And I don ' t purport 
to have the answers here today, but I can assure you that I know 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



27 
it's controversial, and I'll be seeking that proper ground so 
that our kids get the best possible broad education to take care 
of themselves, and to be tolerant of all people. 

SENATOR PETRIS: On bilingual, that's another hot 
potato, bilingual education. We go back and forth on it. We 
had a great statute which got wiped out. 

What is your position generally, number one, on 
whether we should any bilingual education in California. And if 
you think we should, what form should it take? 

ADM. MONTOYA: I guess that issue has been around as 
log as I've been around. I think I mentioned in my opening 
statement that when I went to school, if you spoke that other 
language, you could find yourself before the principal. 

I'm delighted to know now that not only is 
bilingualism, but multilingualism is being recognized for what 
it is: a tremendous asset in this world of ours. 

Let me start at the back end and work forward. 

Good afternoon, Senator Roberti. 

Is that at the end of the educational process, 

wherever it is, Senator Petris, I believe that if a person is 

I 
going to succeed in our society and have the full benefit of all 

the institutions, and to use the institutions, and to have full 

access to the economic activities that are going on, I think 

iithat at the end, English has to be for that person as good as a 

secondary language. I think that English has to be acquired and 

well-used. I use myself as an example. 

I think bilingual education, in a sense that I think 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



28 
you're talking about, those that come to our country at whatever 
age and do not speak English at all, I think that bilingual 
education programs ought to be geared to facilitate the 
transition to no English to all English as rapidly as it takes. 

I'm not expert on the various types of bilingual 
education, but I do believe that there is a place for it so 
that, one, our immigrants feel welcome, the fact that people in 
our country are willing to spend the time and effort to teach 
English. And number two, that they are given the opportunity to 
transition and to compete in the classroom and in society as 
early as possible into their new country. 

So, that's my general philosophy on bilingual 
education. The type that I would be — let me take a bit of 
risk here, and say to you that to teach subjects in both 
languages for a prolonged period of time, I think, can work the 
other way. I think it'll work the other way. 

So, I think, you know, that's basically where I stand 
on that issue. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How many persons from the Latino 
community have attained the rank of Admiral or General? 

ADM. MONTOYA: In my — in the Navy, in my career, I 
knew — there were four of us. There were three when I retired, 
and I left them with two. 

Out of that group, there were two Mexican-Americans; 
one of them was Tom Flores ' s brother, an Admiral in the Supply 
Corps, Joe Flores; then a classmate of mine who was truly 
Spanish, his parents were from Spain, Jessie Hernandez, Flag 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



29 
Officer out at Moffit Field when he retired. The other 
gentleman, who is Duke Hernandez, who rose to the rank of three 
star, is of Puerto Rican decent. 

I was one of three U.S. Hispanics graduated from 
Annapolis in 1958, so there haven't been many of us around. But 
tremendous strides were made during my years in the Navy, to the 
extent that now we have at any one time at Annapolis upwards of 

250 Hispanic Midshipmen, and we have a large we doubled, 

from 1980 to 1990, roughly, we doubled Hispanic Naval officers 
from 800 to over 1600. 

Still, I feel, below the numbers that there ought to 
be in the Navy as an institution that promotes leadership and so 
forth. But nonetheless, great strides in the last few years 
that I was in the United States Navy. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're a Vice President of PG&E? 

ADM. MONTOYA: I'm the Senior Vice President for the 
gas side of our business. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're in charge of the gas part of 
the operations? 

ADM . MONTOYA : That ' s right . I get the gas down here 
from Canada, and from Texas, in the big pipes, yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, having risen to very high 
positions in the private sector and in the service, military, 
where is the competition keenest, as you saw it? 

ADM. MONTOYA: I think it's keen in both places, but 
in my judgment, the military system is a bit of a better system. 
I've been in the private sector for two-and-a-half years, and 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



30 
therefore haven't seen much movement. So, I'm making a judgment 
based upon 35 versus two-and-a-half. 

But the military system is a meritocracy. If one 
starts with a base of people that represent randomly the entire 
country, through the process of fitness report writing, and 
counseling, and the make-up of boards as the services have done 
to make sure that there are people on selection boards that are 
— represent genders and ethnic groups, you see a fairness 
taking place that is predictable because people know where they 
stand at every stage of their career. 

It's a little bit more nebulous in the private sector 

that I've seen. I think my company, for example, has recognized 

ij 

that, and is taking steps to do the kinds of things that gets a 
better mix of officers and senior managers. I might be, and I 
think I am, the senior Hispanic in the entire utility industry 
in the country. And it's just — you know, one looks at that 
and says, why? Is it a coincidence that I am the only one that 
could be doing what I'm doing in the entire country? I don't 
think so. 

But those are the kinds of things being recognized 
and steps being taken, certainly in my corporation, to correct 

that. But you correct it by changing the mix at the entry 

I* 

level, actively seeking those from all parts of our society to 
start that growth up. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I read somewhere that there are 
about 60 Admirals and Generals from the Black community right 
now in the service, but I don't think there are 60 CEOs of 



31 

l 

comparable institutions on the outside. 

2 i 

ADM. MONTOYA: I think it's fair to say that the 

3 

military services, because of the nature of it, can very quickly 

4 

reflect the country's sense of what the country wants, acted 

5 

through the Congress, and then reflect it quickly in the 
6 

military. 

7 

I'm very proud of that, the ability to shift and 

8 

understand new policy, and get on with it. 
9 

I might add editorially that recent events in the 
10 

Navy, those of us who were in it and are out of it, aren't at 
11 

all pleased with what went on in Las Vegas, but I also am proud 

12 i 

of the fact that the leader said, "My fault," and he's gone. I 



13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



think we'll deal with it. 

And I also feel that there ' re going to be some 
tremendous steps taken that that kind of behavior doesn't happen 
again. That's the kind of confidence I have in that 
organization, not withstanding this major glitch. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Last question. 

I found a pen here that all of us are looking for 
with respect to the budget. It's a magic pen. If you use it, 
you can do anything you want. You can get all the money you 
want; you can develop whatever program you want. 

If I lend you this pen and ask you what is wrong with 
our school system, K-12, how would you correct it, what would 
you do? 

ADM. MONTOYA: The reaction would be, give me the 
pen, let me write the check. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



32 
[Laughter. ] 

ADM. MONTOYA: But you aren't going to let me have 
it. So, we will take as a given, Senator Petris . 

You know where my feelings sort of lie and look, 
there are things — I'm also an engineer, and dealt with the 
Navy's engineering bureaucracy all those years, and the engineer 
organizations generally come after submarines get theirs, and 
aviators get theirs, and the ships get theirs, and the engineers 
are told, "Here's what's left, now make it work." 

Fundamentally, I think that when you're dealing with 
a situation we're in right now, I think you tend to make wiser 
decisions in difficult times than you do when there is plenty. 
And I think that what is going on now is going to inspire us 
through need to take a hard look at the entire structure of how 
our school system is put together. 

And I have a sense that somewhere between the 
students and bureaucracy in Sacramento, there are some 
structural changes that need to be made, because we have 
tremendous facility problems. I think one of the issues in our 
school systems is not just — the school teachers or lack 
thereof, or training or leadership, the facilities. So many of 
our places that need it most, inner cities, are just terrible. 
They're not conducive to learning, and they're not conducive to 
getting pride and esteem. And so, I want to apply my expertise 
in that area. 

And from a management perspective, and I really think 
Bill Honig tends to share this view, is that this is the right 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



33 
decision making, more — control in the hands of the local 
principals and teachers may give us the opportunity to rethink 
the way we teach and be able to do more education with less 
bureaucracy in between than we have in the past. 

So that — that — I think that ' s got to be our 
focus, to look at that piece of the action that is not directly 
involved, or indirectly directly involved in the actual 
teaching. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We've taken all the testimony. 

I'm glad I'm here in time to be able to vote for your 
confirmation. It's good to see you once again. 

ADM. MONTOYA: Thank you, Senator. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend the confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves that 
confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

With that, we'll call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



34 

CHAIRMAN ROBERT I: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation's recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations. We look forward to working with 
you. 

ADM. MONTOYA: Thank you very much. I do, too. 
[Thereupon the Senate Rules 
Committee acted upon legislative 
agenda items . ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Back to Governor's appointees, 
next is Donald W. Murphy, Director of Parks and Recreation 
Department . 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, while he's walking up 
here, I'd just like to say that the Governor looked clear into 
Monterey County at Big Sur State Park there to select Mr. Murphy 
to be the State Director. And then once he got here, he got 
Harry Wright, who's here in the audience, his Area Supervisor in 
the Parks system now. So, Monterey County's lost two top 
persons, and we're hoping through their service up here, they 
can help bring back some of the talent. 

MR. MURPHY: I'm sure they'll find somebody. 

I was hoping you wouldn't hold that against me. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Murphy, we'll ask you why you 
feel qualified to assume this position? 

Senator Mello sort of indicated a little bit. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



35 

MR. MURPHY: First, I'd like to say thank you for 
giving me this opportunity. 

I have been a career Park professional for the last 
13 years. For the last six f as the Superintendent in various 
locations, most recently, as Senator Mello indicated, in 
Monterey County down at Big Sur. Prior to that I was 
Superintendent of the Chino Hills District in Riverside County; 
prior to that, Superintendent of the State Parks up in Plumas 
and Eureka County. 

I served as a Training Officer in Monterey at our 
Training Center in Pacific Grove, and for four-and-a-half years, 
as State Park Ranger on the beaches of Southern California. 
That's basically my background as a career professional in the 
State Parks . 

I've also served as President of the California State 
Park Rangers Association for two years, and been active in the 
environmental community as a board member for the last four or 
five years on the Planning and Conservation League, both 
representing the State Park Rangers and individual members as 
well. 

I think my greatest qualification is the fact that 
I'm a product of being able to go to state parks as a youth and 
benefit from the positive experiences that I had there. I think 
it has everything to do with the kind of adult and public 
servant that I am today, and I think that's crucial. 

And the other qualification is that I just have a 
deep, abiding love for our state parks and the quality of the 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



36 
environment for the State of California, and believe that that 
quality of environment is totally contributory to the quality of 
life in California and the state of our economy, attraction of 
jobs, and health and well being of the people of the State of 

California as well. 

i! 

Thank you, Senators. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any questions? 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to add 
one other thing. 

When he came on board, everyone knows how our state 
parks are being — getting cutbacks in personnel, and several 
parks are closing, and there's some tremendous problems around 
the state. 

I'd like to have Mr. Murphy explain how he presently 
is now working with the Governor in trying to meet this 
challenge in making some cuts. He's restructured the Park 
system, looked up middle management, and restructured the 
administration part in a commitment to try and keep as many 

parks open as possible and get us through this crisis we're in 

ii 
right now. 

MR. MURPHY: I'd be happy to speak to that. 

Prior to my coming on board, there was a number of 
strategies that were being discussed to meet with what was a $23 
million projected budget deficit for fiscal year '92-93. There 
was a lot of talk about park closures. 

My feeling as a Park professional is that the parks 
belong to the people of the State of California. The last thing 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



37 
you want to do is take away that resource . 

So coming in, we decided to form a committee to take 
a look at the Department from top to bottom, and I directed the 
committee to concentrate on our limited resources at the area 
where the service was provided to the public, and to cut out 
areas of administrative overhead, to look for efficiencies. And 
that committee was able to save about $10.5 million to mitigate 
the need for us looking to close a number of state parks. 

I'm not particularly proud of the fact, or boastful 
of the fact, that it was done at the expense of our middle 
management, but I simply asked our committee to take in these 
difficult fiscal times an honest look at the Department. 

The committee was made up of career Park 
professionals, and input was taken from over 500 employees in 
the Department. And they recommended these changes, and this 
restructuring, which consolidated about 57 administrative 
districts in the field down to 23; approximately 17 headquarters 
districts down to 9; and increased the number of field 
employees, where the service is provided to the public, from 
approximately 69 percent of our employees to 79 percent of our 
employees, which is significant, while at the same time 
reducing our administrative overhead about 35 percent. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there any opposition in the 
audience? 

We have a list of people here in support. I think 
I'll just mention their names: Mr. Gerald Bryant, President of 
100 Black Men; Mr. Samuel Cullers, President of Sacramento Urban 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



38 
League; Mr. James C. Dodd, President of Dodd and Associates, 
Architects and Planners; Mr. George Finley, Chair of the 
Committee for Employment Opportunities, Black Political 
Association of Fresno; Mr. Reggie Sears, First Vice President of 
Black Advocates in State Service; Mr. Ed Willis, President of 
the National Forum of Black Public Administrators; Mr. Mark 
Palmer, Conservation Director and Chief Executive Officer for 
the Mountain Lion Foundation. 

It's an impressive list of support. 

MR. GARCIA: I also am here representing a coalition 
of organizations, Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please speak for the record so she 
can get your name down. 

MR. GARCIA: My name is Bill Garcia. I'm State 
Advisor for the G. I. Forum. I'm also here representing a 
coalition of Hispanic organizations, including: LULAC, the 
League of United Latin American Citizens; the RNHA, and that's 
the Republican National Hispanic Association; the War Mothers; 
the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. 

We met with Mr. Murphy on various occasions over the 
past seven months. We are very much impressed with his platform 
and his commitments . 

We urge his confirmation today, sir. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Garcia. 

Yes, please come forward. 

MR. HAM: Mr. Chairman, Members, Bob Ham representing 
the Off-road Vehicle Legislative Coalition. 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



39 

In past occasions, we haven't had the opportunity to 
welcome our new Director this way, and so we'd particularly like 
to be heard. 

We represent the major off-road organizations in 
California, which are a major constituency of the Department, 
and this year are a major funding source as well. 

And we ' ve found this Director to be very easy to deal 
with. He has been very willing to listen to our concerns. He 
has — we don't expect to agree on everything, but we do urge 
your confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Next witness. 

MS. SADLER: I'm Lynn Sadler with the Planning and 
Conservation League. 

We've known Don Murphy for a number of years, as he's 
been a Board member. And I served with him on a couple of task 
forces that were formed to basically rescue, I would say, a 
rather ailing Department. 

We think he's a breath of fresh air, and we look 
forward to working with him. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

I have been concerned a little bit about some of our 
resources have to be put into urban parks as well as less 
populated areas. 

I would just be interested in knowing if the 
Department intends to maintain a policy of looking out for state 
participation in urban parks and recreation? 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



40 

MR. MURPHY: Absolutely, and I'm, you know, really 
happy to report a new program that we've started in that regard. 
Maybe I'll just give you a description of the Candlestick 
Recreation Area, which has always been a long-time commitment, 
as well as the Baldwin Hills State Recreation Area and State 
Park, and all of the Southern California beaches, which get our 
largest population, visitation, are in heavily populated areas 
as well. 

But the new focus that we have because of the 
commitment that we have to serve all the people of the State of 
California has to do with a new program we started called 
Project Camp. It's a family-oriented program which I'm just 
going to take a minute to describe. 

We really go into the urban communities . This was a 
recommendation that we took from our Hispanic Advisory Council. 
What we do is work with the local community at the local 
community centers, with their families, because many times, 
children will go to state parks and have a wonderful experience, 
come back home and say, "Mom and Dad, I want to go camping. " 
And Mom and Day will say, for various reasons, "We can't go," 
because the car's not good, or I don't know how to camp, or we 
don't have the equipment, and that sort of thing. 

So what we are doing with our sister agencies and 
resources is actually going to communities and training them how 
to use the state parks. In this past month, we took 50 
individuals, about five families, up to Silverwood Lake, and 
they were families. And these families had a wonderful 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



41 
experience. They'll go back and share that experience with 
others; also share their expertise on how to put a tent up, how 
to identify poison oak; how to fish; all the wonderful things 
that you get to experience. And then there's a domino effect, a 
snowballing effect, that takes place, and then other people in 
that population come out and use the state parks . 

We're in the process now of putting together a 
booklet to teach other urban recreational centers how to do that 
and get their — their kids out to the state park. Some of the 
funding is underwritten by cooperating associations as well as 
the State Park Foundation. 

So, we're very cognizant of that, working everyday to 
improve our efforts there. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

MR. MURPHY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: When was this program put 
together? 

MR. MURPHY: It's called Project Camp [sic]. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Project Camp? 

MR. MURPHY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any other questions of 
Mr. Murphy? 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move 
his nomination. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Mello moves nomination be 
recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



42 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

Three to zero. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris isn't here to vote, 
so the vote's three to zero; confirmation's recommended to the 
Floor. 

Senator Petris will be back. We'll leave the role 
open for him. 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, can we take a brief 
recess? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We have one more confirmation, 
Mr. Wilson. We will take a ten-minute recess. 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Committee will come to order. 

Next is Governor's appointee Richard A. Wilson, 
Director of Forestry and Fire Protection. 

Mr. Wilson, we'll ask you why you feel you're 
qualified to assume this position. 

MR. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm a 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



43 
native-born son of California. I've worked in the resource 
field and worked with the environment for a little over 30 
years, mostly in Northern California. 

I've lived on a ranch that has had timber, conifers, 
hard woods, wildlife, live stock, recreation, wilderness. I've 
been involved with the management and utilization of these 
resources . 

I have worked at the state level with the 
Legislature. I'm the past President of the Planning and 
Conservation League. I was active when Assemblyman Z'berg and 
Jim Pardau, his assistant, and Senator Nejedly were active in 
formulating the Forest Practice Act of 197 3, which is what we're 
operating under today, some 19 years later. 

I served on the State Coastal Commission for seven 
years, and at that time was really the one person that had 
knowledge about the resources, and timber resources, range land 
resources, areas that the Director of Forestry and the 
Department of Forestry ought to be actively engaged in, and 
elements of all kinds, whether it's the management of timber, or 
the burning of vegetation, the burning of fuel to reduce the 
fire hazard. 

I served for four years on the Board of Forestry. I 
was responsible for putting together the California Land Use 
Task Force in 1975, a document that was an effort made by the 
interests in conservation, the interests of business, to see if 
we could hammer out some better policies, and delivered this 
report to the Legislature and the Governor, then-Governor Brown. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



44 

And I basically have worked with Mendocino County at 
the local level, helping them attempt to achieve a sustainable 
forestry industry base with their Forest Advisory Committee, 
appointed by the Board of Supervisors. I did that for a little 
over one year, before I accepted the job as Director of Forestry 
and Fire Protection. 

And I've basically worked on an number of committees, 
as well as other public entities, beyond my work on my ranch, in 
education and other matters not related to resources . 

I also feel that we're at a crossroads in the 
management of the resources in the state, with the changing 
demographics, and the inflow of population, and the pressures 
that they're putting on those resources. 

The CDF is basically the emergency service 
organization of the state. It supplies emergency service, for 
instance, whether it's earthquakes, Southeast Los Angeles riots, 
or the Loma Prieta Earthquake, the 1-5 trucks, and the fire — 
the whole fire protection system. In addition to that, it 
supplies the timber management program for protecting timber 
.resources, as well as the environment, on all of our state 
lands, which collective add up to something like 40 million 
acres . 

It ' s my feeling that the pressures that are being 
brought to bear on these organizations, and the need for 
funding, is putting them in the critical position. The state's 
in a critical position. 

It would be my hope, for whatever time I have, to 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



45 
help with this organization, that we will have the needed 
equipment, and the needed personnel to deal with fire 
protection, the very highest, best kind of equipment we need to 
carry out our mission, as well as the ability to see that we 
maintain sustainable forestry in this state for future 
generations, and that we can be — give these wildlands and 
these forest areas protection from the potential fire and fuel 
build-up that now is threatening the state. 

I think that covers my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I'd be 
glad to entertain any questions. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions of Mr. Wilson? 

Is there anyone in the audience in opposition? 
Please come forward. 

MR. JEFFRIES: My name is Don Jeffries. I'm a 
private citizen. I formerly worked for the Department of 
Forestry for two years prior to Mr. Wilson's appointment. 

I have a couple of concerns. I wrote a letter to all 
Members of the Rules Committee. I'd like to make sure that's 
entered into the record. 

I had the honor of meeting Mr. Wilson just a few 

minutes ago. This is not, by any means, a personal concern. 
i 

I guess primarily I am concerned about the level of 

progress that organization has made in terms of promotions and 

advancement of minorities, particularly blacks. The thing for 

me — the thing that motivated it for me and motivated my 

concern was the placement of an individual who I happen to have 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



46 
spent two years working for, the elevation of that person to the 
Chief of Human Rights position. I feel very comfortable with my 
knowledge of her capability in that area, and I'm concerned that 
she still retains that position. 

I've communicated with the Director for sometime; I 
think since August of last year. He assured me this is 
something that he is currently working on. 

And I guess my ultimate concern is to ensure that the 
Committee has the ability to ensure that I am not being asked to 
accept illusory promises in terms of anticipating some action, 
some improvement, in terms of the employment opportunities 
within the Department. 

There are over 3,000 employees in the Department of 
Forestry. Less than 2 percent of those employees are black. 

I happen to be familiar with the outreach and 
(recruitment efforts of the organization, having worked in the 
lLabor Relations Office, and I also am familiar with the skills 
of the people that were assigned to take care of these jobs. 

To give you some idea of my qualifications, I have 
approximately 15 years' background in affirmative action-equal 
employment opportunity. I have a couple of years in labor 
relations. I've worked with the U.S. Equal Employment 
Opportunities Commission in San Francisco, and my 
responsibilities there included reviewing the progress made by 
individual military and other federal agencies in the Western 
Region, which included the four western states: Hawaii, Nevada, 
Arizona and California. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



47 

So, I'm familiar with plans to sincerely improve the 
representation of individuals, and I'm also familiar with 
successful strategies used to accomplish that end. 

Unfortunately, in 1979-80, the State Personnel Board 
had implemented a sanctions order against the Department of 
Forestry. There is very little compliance as a consequence. 
They made specific recommendations which, to this day, have not 
been sufficiently implemented. 

I recognize that Mr. Wilson cannot be held 
accountable for lack of progress during the time that he was not 
there. My — what I'm asking you for is to ensure that these 
issues that are important to some of us in other communities are 
not overlooked, because there are very many people out there who 
are unemployed, unfortunately resort to crime; under-employed, 
under-utilized, ignored, and even in L.A., rioting, because they 
can't find meaningful employment. 

If there's no priority and no consideration for their 
particular lifestyle, or if it's easier to drive past these 
folks, you need to realize I got to live with those folks as 
well. Some of them are relatives of mine. And I want to devote 
my energies to improving the quality of my life, but I also 
don't want to drag along the guilt of knowing that I can have 
some impact when it comes to addressing the quality of such 
lives . 

It ' s not a personal concern between me and 
Mr. Wilson. Obviously, he's a charming and qualified 
individual . 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



48 

But I want to make sure that the Committee asks the 
appropriate to ensures that the issues that concern the 
minority community, the black community, and me personally, are 
and will be addressed in the future. 

If you have any questions — first of all, I'd like 
to ask if everyone had an opportunity get the letter that I 
sent? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, we did. 

Let me ask Mr. Wilson a question as to what your 
policies are as far as hiring? 

MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of Mr. 
Jeffries' letter and the situation that he's developed in the 
letter. 

I consider affirmative action to be something that is 
extremely important in the CDF organization. While there has 
been progress, it hasn't been, perhaps, fast enough. 

At the time I've been there, in the area principally 
responsible for affirmative action services I have appointed to 
the highest level of my organization a woman whose chief 
responsibility is to take that over and to begin to review the 
whole procedure — procedures we use in this particular section, 
of which affirmative action is one, clearly. 

We have also elevated — and that's the first time 
we've ever had a woman in this position. Also, we elevated a 
woman up to Division Chief, which is the first time that that 
has happened in the organization, and that I've asked that a 
plan be devised to review where we're going, what we're doing 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



49 
currently, not what we've been doing in the past. 

In the case of Mr. Jeffries, I asked that 
investigations be made to see if there was any — anything that 
showed that we were not in compliance with the affirmative 
action, and what basically our policies were, whether there was 
any discrimination. The finding was that, no, there was not any 
discrimination. The report was sent over to the EEOC. I would 
assume EEOC would review the Department's finding, report back 
if they were in error and if they need to make changes or to do 
something about our Department on the basis of this case. 

However, as I pointed out, I have asked that we 
review our program and see that we upgrade our affirmative 
action program, and that will be submitted to me. I don't know 
just exactly how soon, Senator, because of the budget, but it 
will be in the next, I would think, three or four months. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good, and have you put 
together a list of timetables, or whatever, as far as action? 

MR. WILSON: I've asked the Deputy to do that. I 
have asked for that kind of a program. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Jeffries, do you have a 
comment? 

MR. JEFFRIES: I guess I'm not taking away any of the 
absolutely wonderful intentions that the Director has . 

I guess I would remind you that the State Personnel 
Board set up the same kind of monitoring devise some years ago, 
and unfortunately, it — it didn't prove to be very successful. 

I don't expect that his intent is probably going to 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



50 
succeed, but I'd like to ensure that it does. And I'd like to 
make sure that I can rely on the Committee to place some 
mechanism or vehicle in place to ensure that it does. 

MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, this is not related to 
this issue, but I think it speaks to the issue at hand, and that 
is this. That I attach a lot of importance to urban forestry, 
and I think that urban forestry has been, perhaps, the 
representatives just going and planting trees in cities. 

I consider it to be a much broader issue, one that 
deals with neighborhoods, the quality of life in neighborhoods, 
and the ability to rehabilitate neighborhoods that obviously 
need to have commercial and industrial help. I'm talking about 
just the quality of those neighborhoods: if they're livable; 
that they're pleasant, a place where people want to live. 

Towards that end, I have — we have an Urban Advisory 
Council, and I have made some appointments that are people that 
are aware of these needs in the city. One of these persons is 
Kathy Marquin Snead, who is running a program in South San 
Francisco. It's been running through the jail and into the 
community. It's both a garden project as well as a tree 
planting project. It's basically helping people that have been 
in jails, rehabilitating them, and bringing them out there and 
back into the society. They get a half a cent out of the sales 
tax. It's administered with the help of the Department of 
Public Works. 

I will be going down tomorrow morning and meeting 
with these folks with some of my personnel at 10:30 tomorrow 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



51 
morning. After we've reviewed that program, it's our intention 
to carry on down into Southeastern Los Angeles to see what 
we might do toward helping in that end in our Urban Forestry 
Program . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I hope you continue with your 
Urban Forestry Program. I can think of nothing more important. 

Any other questions? 

Anyone else like to testify on the confirmation? 

Thank you, Mr. Jeffries. 

MR. JEFFRIES: Thank you. 

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Chairman, Members, I'm Dennis 
O'Brien, President of the California Department of Forestry 
Employees Association, also affiliated with the California 
Professional Firefighters and the International Association of 
Firefighters . 

It's my pleasure to appear before you in support of 
Richard Wilson for Director of the Department of Forestry. 

In the short time we have had to get to know 
Mr. Wilson, I can tell you that I and other officers and members 
of our association have found him to be open, honest, and 
sincere. He is working hard in his attempts to maintain the 
high standards of CDF, and as you know, CDF is one of the larger 
fire departments in North America. 

In addition to fighting fires, our Department also 
has resource responsibilities. 

Mr. Wilson has struggled mightily with the same 
budget problems which are affecting all state departments. We 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



52 
are working together as much as possible to help ensure that 
the public we were sworn to protect will continue to be served 
in the best and most efficient manner possible. 

We look forward to continuing our excellent 
relationship with Mr. Wilson and his staff, and we urge the 
Members of the Rules Committee to confirm his appointment. 

I ' d be happy to answer any questions . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, thank you for your testimony. 

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please come forward. 

MS. JENNINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. 
Jennifer Jennings, Planning and Conservation League. 

We're in strong support of Mr. Wilson' confirmation. 
We believe he has both the ability and the credentials to bridge 
the gap between the environmental community and the timber 
industry, and we urge your confirmation of him. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Next witness. 

MR. HAMILTON: I'm Jim Hamilton, California Trout. 

California Trout encourages the Senate Rules 
Committee to confirm Governor Wilson's appointment of Richard 
Wilson to the post of Director of the California Department of 
Forestry and Fire Protection. 

We've known Richard Wilson for many years, think 
going back 20 years, since the hoxie crossing that occurred on 
some lands that he owns there on the middle fork of the Eel, the 
summer steelhead stream. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



53 

Since that time, California Trout has had the firm 
impression that Richard Wilson has impeccable credentials as a 
conservationist. We think that he also brings a practical, as 
opposed to merely pragmatic, approach to conservation and 
protection of the resources, both enabling the protection for 
trout, steelhead and also in the appropriate use of forestry 
lands for whatever purposes . 

So, we encourage this Committee to further that 
conservation process. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Anyone else? 

Then do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves confirmation 
be recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is three to zero; 
confirmation's recommended to the Floor. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



54 
Congratulations . We look forward to working with 
you. 

MR. WILSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Members of the Committee. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
4:55 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



55 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of 
the State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; 
that the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel 
or attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

Hi WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand this / day of July, 1992. 



L^^velyn/j. mizak u 
Shorthand Reporter 



206-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

, , Senate Publications 
11 00 J Street, Room B-15 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 206-R when ordering.